1) Understood. I've been disconnected from Perl for a while, and this
is really the first time I've been participating in the Perl
community. Thanks for the heads-up. :)

2) I agree that it is both important and pertinent to get the general
requirements down for the project, but I do see a need and a benefit
to having the architecture forming in the meanwhile. I see how these
things can be connected, obviously, but with a fairly flexible
architecture it can be easy to expand or change it as needed. If we
have the skeletal system in place, we can add the muscle and the skin
on as needed. [Read more of my comments below.]

3) I'll be honest and say that I'm not a big fan of the 'Wikicosm'
part, but the Perl++ part works for me. I particiularly like simple
names. Maybe we could go with something distinctive, much like
'Joomla' is or 'Drupal', etc. Something different, and not nearly as

Mainly speaking on point number 2 again, I agree that we need to be
discussing and deciding on the minimal features, but this is does not
mean that the architecture should be poorly designed. Even with a
weakly implemented yet well designed base, it would be easier to take
this minimal wiki and upgrade it into something very powerful.

I guess what my very first recommendation (before even a name) is that
we have a flexible, well-designed archiecture, preferrably with an MVC
pattern, with RESTful-like (URL) mapping, etc. I believe that this
will be integral to the successful adoption in the community because
it allows for very expansive modification.

I will be looking over some other features to recommend. Wherein shall
we officially submit our recommendations? Here? And is there a
specific way to do so? (This is more of a conversation-generating


Reply via email to