(RhetTbull) Re: Re: Config::Ini and IniFile on CPAN?

Whether or not there are other modules available really isn't the point. I think it's rather bad form to remove a module that people are actively using. I have code that's "in the wild" that uses Config::Ini. Now, that code is effectively broken. The users can't be expected to port it to AppConfig or another config module. I can understand removing old versions and even dropping support but if modules can just disappear, then I will certainly reconsider my use of CPAN.

Comment on (RhetTbull) Re: Re: Config::Ini and IniFile on CPAN?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (RhetTbull) Re: Re: Config::Ini and IniFile on CPAN? by belg4mit (Prior) on May 13, 2002 at 02:25 UTC
It is the point in this case, this is software currently under development (or at least that was the impression I got from Flame, perhaps in the CB?). Yes, it's probably not best to remove every version of something. On the other hand, CPAN is more like your local public library than the Library of Congress; they can't be expected to keep everything for all time. If your code is "in the wild", isn't it already functional, all dependencies met? Besides it's generally a good idea to keep a virgin copy of the software you use. As Kanji mentioned Backpan (.../AVATAR). Oh, and finally, this would also be a place were code abstraction would be a Good Thing ;-) `-- perl -pew "s/\b;([mnst])/'$1/g"`	[reply]
Re: Re: (RhetTbull) Re: Re: Config::Ini and IniFile on CPAN? by RhetTbull (Curate) on May 13, 2002 at 11:09 UTC
If your code is "in the wild", isn't it already functional, all dependencies met? Yes, but the next time someone wants to (re)install it, they can't simply install the required modules per the present README file I distributed. The project in question is distributed to a limited number of people so this point is kinda moot -- it's easy for me to redistribute. It would be a much bigger deal if it were a public project. CPAN is more like your local public library than the Library of Congress I respectfully disagree with you on that point. If the CPAN? isn't Perl's version of the Library of Congress then I don't know what is! CPAN is the Perl repository! Oh, and finally, this would also be a place were code abstraction would be a Good Thing Yes, you're right. But should I abstract every module I use? Just in case someone takes it off of CPAN? Perhaps I'll write an abstraction layer for CGI.pm and post to the monastery -- stand clear of the flames! ;-) In this particular case, I did abstact the INI handling stuff so there is no problem in my main program but my abstraction module now needs updating. I only abstracted because I needed some functionality not provided by Config::Ini. That certainly isn't the case with every module I use. Besides it's generally a good idea to keep a virgin copy of the software you use. Agreed. I'll be sure to be better about that from now on.	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks