[Chicago-talk] Is it worth to be put in CPAN?
tigerpeng2001 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 17 09:27:55 PDT 2006
The module proposed is just for traversing across hierarchy (tree, trees) structure inspired by Dominus's HOP. The function is not specified for growing trees, trimming trees, nor burning trees. Its behavior depends on the optional callback functions passed into it. By default, it only walks through the hierarchy structure without doing anything, except using some system resources. That’s what I mean generic.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Fragassi <frag at ripco.com>
To: Chicago.pm chatter <chicago-talk at pm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:45:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Chicago-talk] Is it worth to be put in CPAN?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, tiger peng wrote:
> Recently, I am handling a couple of hierarchy data, such as purging log
> files, purging data base table without foreign key being implemented in
> DBMS, generating catalog XML files, etc. After searching CPAN without
> finding very simple/generic modules. So, I made one module for myself.
> It seems very convenient to me. I am wandering if it is worth to be put
> on CPAN?
There are a few modules in the Tree:: heirarchy (Tree::Simple,
Tree::DAG_Node) that do similar things. This doesn't mean that you
shouldn't put yours on CPAN though. If you do, be sure to include test
scripts for your module.
-- Mike F.
Chicago-talk mailing list
Chicago-talk at pm.org
More information about the Chicago-talk