[PBP-pm] Reviewing PBP recommended modules?
Rhesa Rozendaal
rhesa at cpan.org
Tue Nov 22 09:37:59 PST 2005
C. Garrett Goebel wrote:
> I'm excited to learn of Perl::Critic. Perhaps the first thing I'll try to
> do with it is run it against Core Perl modules just to get an idea of what
> we're up against.
I'd be interested to see what that turns up...
> I don't expect many CPAN maintainers to be interested in applying
> internals-only patches to bring their modules into line with PBP
> recommendations. Perhaps I'll be surprised.
The kwalitee game seems to suggest otherwise. And I suspect the same pro and
con arguments in that area will pop up here too.
> I wouldn't consider asking a maintainer to apply non-backward compatible
> changes in a module's interface. PBP::* would be for PBP module
> refactoring which makes a break with backward compatibility.
While that may make an interesting theoretical exercise, I doubt anyone will
want to write programs against them. Package names are long enough already,
generally speaking. I don't think this reads well at all:
use PBP::LWP::UserAgent;
use PBP::HTTP::Request::Common;
use PBP::SOAP::Lite::Transport::TCP;
use PBP::Template::Plugin::GD::Graph::area;
use PBP::CGI::Application::Plugin::DevPopup::HTTPHeaders;
That's 9 common characters at the start of each line!
Pretty soon, you'd be forced to violate the 78 columns practice ;)
my 2 øre,
Rhesa
More information about the PBP-pm
mailing list