On Thursday, 18 September 2014 11:26:12 UTC+1, Roland Lammel wrote: > > We do not support splitting up the Mojolicious distribution, you're >>> completely on your own with this. >>> >> >> Wow, and people are surprised that open source projects have a bad >> reputation; even a pointer in the right direction would have been a nice >> gesture. >> I don't know why you bothered to split it into two name spaces if they >> aren't supported separately. >> >> > There is a reason why it is not split up. Read up on the history of the > project in case you are interested. Enough on that, it's the web-in-a-box, > not a web-in-some-boxes. >
I'm sure there are reasons why they are treated as a unit. I've used a lot of third-party modules and this is the first time that I've encountered a dependency that relied on the physical relative locations of the module files. I assumed that the Mojo namespace was for the supporting modules and Mojolicious was for the user facing applications built upon them. We've been using just the Mojo modules for quite a while as they are excellent for the non-user facing tasks we need. We decided to try the user-facing ones for new projects. I think the project is missing a trick combining them as the non-user facing modules are easily as useful as the user-facing ones and might be dismissed as just for Web projects. So in case you misread the advice of sri. Don't do that, or the community > won't be able to help, as no one will have your problems. > We have a development area that can be set up as recommended by suppliers before we make any changes to fit into our working environment. It is used to ensure that any issues are not environmental and was where I tracked down the issue in the first place. If it is environmental then we include that information in the report to the supplier - as I did. We now know that anything related to separating the locations is not supported and will not trouble the community with any further issues caused by it. > Your actual problem seems to only be transferring too many files on > deployment (which are actually a pretty low number anyway). I would > recommend to use tools like rsync or using git for deployment to solve this > particular problem without having to change the dist. > A reasonable assumption but wrong in this case. We do use rsync to distribute and by "unnecessary" I wasn't referring to size but functionality. I work in a secure enterprise environment. Any non-core modules need to be approved for use. Adding an event-based library had very little scrutiny. Adding a full web distribution to every environment was a different issue. As I said, we had no need for it previously so only included the Mojo modules in our server setup. For certain projects we started to use the user-facing capabilities. These projects have different access levels so cannot easily be added to the same location as the server builds. Fear not, we will now include Mojolicious in the list of suppliers that we need to treat specially. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mojolicious" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
