Re: failures that aren't failures
Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, One of my modules has a failure noted against it that was caused by the tester's wonky Perl installation. How can this be removed? I don't have this problem but my modules sometimes fail on windows platform when theyr are not supposed to work there at all.
RE: New module: CGI::Tooltip
I am not convinced of this. As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript. It should be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled. I'm all for meaningful names, but they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line. Becky, this seems to me to be a very useful module. Mx. -Original Message- From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the module name under Java or the name od the specific library you interface with. Becky Alcorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN. This module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant Javascript tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm). This library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips (onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages. How appropriate is the name CGI::Tooltip? Regards Becky
Re: CPAN Rating
Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FORBID any module without a meaningful readme with all its (possibly recursive) dependencies, its pod and any other relevant information inside. I don't think it is in the spirit of CPAN to FORBID anything. OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum of documentation is not anything it's nothing so I'd say it's OK to not allow nothing to get into CPAN. We, of course, want to avoid waisting our time but I think all want to help the module author to get the a chance to be used. I would also forbid (yes that's forbid this time) modules without makefile to make it into CPAN. There is unfortunately no system to check if meaningful documentation exists in the distribution or not (some AI guru may want to look at this :-) The spirit of CPAN is quite straighforwardly described when it come to documentation but unfortunately a dummy (dumb) readme is generated instead for forcing the user to write one. The access to CPAN is not moderated in any way (my anarchist side likes that) but maybe a minimum of control wouldn't hurt (my fascite side like that) Cheers, Nadim PS: I wouldn't like to find commercial modules on CPAN either
Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip
OK that was the first part of my proposal (and I find your explication for its dismissa fine) but as was explained in the original posting, this module needs a library to be installed. Wouldn't it be nice for the people browsing around to get that information right away? Would CGI::Tooltip::Whateverlibrary be acceptable? N. Martyn Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not convinced of this. As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript. It should be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled. I'm all for meaningful names, but they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line. -Original Message- From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the module name under Java or the name od the specific library you interface with.
RE: New module: CGI::Tooltip
Yeah, that makes sense to me. -Original Message- From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip OK that was the first part of my proposal (and I find your explication for its dismissa fine) but as was explained in the original posting, this module needs a library to be installed. Wouldn't it be nice for the people browsing around to get that information right away? Would CGI::Tooltip::Whateverlibrary be acceptable? N. Martyn Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] e.corp.gs.com... I am not convinced of this. As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript. It should be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled. I'm all for meaningful names, but they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line. -Original Message- From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the module name under Java or the name od the specific library you interface with.
Re: CPAN Rating
Le 17 juin 04, à 12:41, khemir nadim a écrit : OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum of documentation is not anything it's nothing so I'd say it's OK to not allow nothing to get into CPAN. We, of course, want to avoid waisting our time but I think all want to help the module author to get the a chance to be used. No, it's not nothing. It's just code, and code may be valuable in itself, even without documentation. Maybe a less strict rule would be to allow such modules to go in CPAN while they're at version number 0.x. -- Eric Cholet
Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip
On Jun 17, 2004, at 7:36 AM, darren chamberlain wrote: * Becky Alcorn becky at unisolve.com.au [2004/06/17 12:25]: We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN. This module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant Javascript tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm). This library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips (onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages. How appropriate is the name CGI::Tooltip? Is the interface and intended usage CGI specific or HTML specific? Perhaps HTML::Tooltip? Yeah, HTML::Tooltip and CGI::Tooltip seem like the obvious names. I don't think you need to put Javascript into the name, that's too much information. -Ken
RE: New module: CGI::Tooltip
I'm 50/50 on this. Just because a module name mentions Javascript doesn't mean it would immediately be discounted by other developers. If people need something to handle Tooltips, they'll use it, or at least read the pod documentation. Also, there are lots of other tooltip implementations out there in browsers. Some people implement tooltips purely in CSS. On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Pearce, Martyn wrote: I am not convinced of this. As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript. It should be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled. I'm all for meaningful names, but they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line. Becky, this seems to me to be a very useful module. Mx. Christopher Josephes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CPAN Rating
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Fergal Daly wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:39:22PM -0300, SilvioCVdeAlmeida wrote: Let's write it better: 1. FORBID any module without a meaningful readme with all its (possibly recursive) dependencies, its pod and any other relevant information inside. Having the dependencies easily visible is a good idea but rather than banning those modules which don't do, it should be done automitcally by the CPAN indexer, all the info is there. A couple of things. 1. I thought CPAN automatically rejected uploads that didn't include a README file (I could be wrong on this). 2. A meaningful readme is very vague. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's open to interpretation. A lot of times, I just refer people to the POD docs. 3. Testing dependencies might be really difficult to automate, especially if a module requires a lot of non-core modules. Also, what happens if a dependent module changes or breaks? How would that affect the testing status of the module you uploaded? An easier alternative might be to use testers.cpan.org to our advantage. Why not just write UNTESTED in big bold letters until a test run is submitted. That would cover the dependency issue. Christopher Josephes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:13:08AM -0500, Ken Williams wrote: Yeah, HTML::Tooltip and CGI::Tooltip seem like the obvious names. I don't think you need to put Javascript into the name, that's too much information. Actually, I like JavaScript::Tooltip. If the the code is not HTML-specific, it may well be useful in other places JavaScript is used. It's my understanding that JavaScript also is used with SVG, PDF and Scribus documents. So I think a good name might be JavaScript::Tooltip::HTML. Then people could implement the same API with different backends: JavaScript::Tooltip::SVG JavaScript::Tooltip::PDF (I'm not even sure that PDF would support this kind of tooltip, but I imagine SVG would.) Mark
Re: CPAN Rating
On 17 Jun 2004, at 11:41, khemir nadim wrote: [snip] OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum of documentation is not anything it's nothing so I'd say it's OK to not allow nothing to get into CPAN. [snip] Tosh ;-) If I removed the README file from one of my CPAN modules would it suddenly become nothing? No. A distribution without a README is perfectly usable, maybe slightly less usable than one with a README, but still usable. Personally I've had more problems with out of date and inaccurate READMEs than I have with absent ones. In fact I can't remember the last time I looked at a README file - the POD's always my first port of call, followed by META.yml, Makefile/Build.PL and the test suite. [snip] The access to CPAN is not moderated in any way (my anarchist side likes that) but maybe a minimum of control wouldn't hurt (my fascite side like that) [snip] Since I don't think anybody else has mentioned it you might find Jarkko's The Zen of Comprehensive Archive http://www.cpan.org/misc/ZCAN.html an interesting read. Two excerpts: adding any rating or approval processes creates bottlenecks, and bottlenecks are bad There is no magic. All it takes is a few people that sit down and get first something running, a rough cut. Then iteratively enhance it. Don't try to create a master plan that will get everything right in one fell swoop. The only one that will get swooped is you. Cheers, Adrian
Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip
* Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-06-17 16:15]: So I think a good name might be JavaScript::Tooltip::HTML. I put in another vote for this. Regards, -- Aristotle If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough.
Re: CPAN Rating
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 11:59, Adrian Howard wrote: On 17 Jun 2004, at 11:41, khemir nadim wrote: [snip] OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum of documentation is not anything it's nothing so I'd say it's OK to not allow nothing to get into CPAN. [snip] Tosh ;-) If I removed the README file from one of my CPAN modules would it suddenly become nothing? No. A distribution without a README is perfectly usable, maybe slightly less usable than one with a README, but still usable. Personally I've had more problems with out of date and inaccurate READMEs than I have with absent ones. In fact I can't remember the last time I looked at a README file - the POD's always my first port of call, followed by META.yml, Makefile/Build.PL and the test suite. [snip] The access to CPAN is not moderated in any way (my anarchist side likes that) but maybe a minimum of control wouldn't hurt (my fascite side like that) [snip] Since I don't think anybody else has mentioned it you might find Jarkko's The Zen of Comprehensive Archive http://www.cpan.org/misc/ZCAN.html an interesting read. Two excerpts: adding any rating or approval processes creates bottlenecks, and bottlenecks are bad There is no magic. All it takes is a few people that sit down and get first something running, a rough cut. Then iteratively enhance it. Don't try to create a master plan that will get everything right in one fell swoop. The only one that will get swooped is you. Cheers, Adrian For whatever my opinion is worth I agree with Jarkko in that any rating or approval process would be detrimental to the overall state of CPAN (short of namespace delegation which certainly requires moderation to some degree). Let's not bother with any inherent rating system and if people really really want to rate modules they can do so in a separate forum environment that has nothing directly to do with CPAN itself with the exception of linking to search.cpan.org pages (one way from the forums to CPAN and not the other way around). Personally I m!LOVE! CPAN just as it is and there isn't a thing I'd change about it. Then again what do I know *shrugs* I'm just one lowly CPAN contributor and user. -- Kevin C. Krinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Door Software Inc.
