[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