Re: CGI::Application
On 16/06/11 23:21, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>
>> There are new releases of CGI::Application and
>> CGI::Application::Dispatch.
>>
>
> Yes I just saw that.
>
>> I really think we would be better off with
>> libcgi-application-basic-plugin-bundle-perl split up into more
>> manageable pieces.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I would however like to continue my experiment with bundles at least
>> until we get a clear word from the ftp masters that there is no need.
>>
>> I propose splitting as follows:
>>
>> 1.) Bundling the various small plugins such as ErrorPage, Forward,
>> Redirect with libcgi-application-perl itself.
In my opinion ErrorPage is a waste of space. So I actually pre-agree
with the ftp masters on that one. However I cannot impose that opinion
on others. Those are all very small modules.
>>
>
> What's the rationale? Only size? I would put them in a bundle of their
> own.
>
>> 2.) Bundling the DevPpopup plugins together.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 3.) Obviously we need a transition package for
>> libcgi-application-basic-plugin-bundle-perl itself.
>
> Well if we split out things like the dev plugins, perhaps, this could
> become a rump package for whatever is left.
Yes lots of things would need to be updated but there has to be a
transition package for quite a while. So there is no hurry to change the
dependencies in libtitanium-perl although taht would be an obvious next
step.
>
> Also libtitanium-perl will need to be updated to use the new packages.
>
>>
>> 4.) Everything else I reckon I can it alone.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> This seems to me a very functional organization of the modules.
>>
>>
>
> Go for it.
>
--
Nicholas Bamber | http://www.periapt.co.uk/
PGP key 3BFFE73C from pgp.mit.edu
Reply to: