[PBP-pm] Reviewing PBP recommended modules?

Karen silver+pbp at phoenyx.net
Tue Nov 22 11:23:44 PST 2005


On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, C. Garrett Goebel wrote:

CGG>What other way?

Well, uh, almost any other way.  CPAN's soundex makes searching a bit more 
adventurous than sometimes it ought to be, but if there's some sort of 
standardization in noting the PBPness in the pod then we still ought to be 
able to figure the searches out.  And if not, well, a PBP project a la 
annoCPAN, where we externally index the PBPish modules, is certainly 
possible.

CGG>Refactoring a module without breaking backward compatibility could be fed
CGG>as a set of patches to the module's maintainer. Assuming they're willing
CGG>to take them: no name changes involved.

Right... but then you're back to finding out those modules are PBPish in 
some other manner than namespace.

CGG>Non-backward compatible refactorings would break existing code. This is
CGG>clearly an unacceptable option unless the module's maintainer defines a
CGG>clear schedule of depreciating one interface in favor of another (like POE
CGG>does);

Yeah, I suppose saying "if it can't be refactored with backward 
compatibility, it was probably a module you shouldn't have been using in 
the first place" doesn't work, huh?

But seriously:  if all modules *should* be PBPical at some future date, 
then I think tacking PBP into the namespace, fore *or* aft, is 
counterproductive, even for wholly new modules.  (And that's outside my 
bias against module name *changes*, mind.)


More information about the PBP-pm mailing list