Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2015
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:57:30PM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Moreover, even in cases where it does happen, it won’t be existing code
> > that breaks but only newly written, when its author tries using renamed
> > imports and finds they don’t work. So this form of monkey-patching does
> > not seem problematic.
> >
>
> Module X uses Exporter.
> Module Y uses X and requires Exporter 3.1415 to get aliasing on X.
> Module Z uses Y
> I use Module Z.
> Module X wraps import() for some reason.
> New Module X gets upgraded on my system (or newly deployed)
> When I use Module Z, Module X does something surprising.
> I report the error to author of Module X, who doesn't know what the hell
> I'm talking about.
> We discover the problem is with Module Y.
> I report the error to author of Module Y.
> Author of Module Y updates it to work around Module X's wrap (if they
> haven't done so already).
> I upgrade Module Y (or re-deploy) to get the fix.
But that's not a new problem, isn't? Even without the proposed fix, if
Y uses "use X '/pattern/'" and X gets updated to roll its own exporting,
and you install the new X, your module Z will break.
The problem here isn't a new feature to Exporter, it's X ditching Exporter.
> Alternatively, author of Module::Y can just manually alias a function from
> X and nothing breaks when X changes.
>
> I agree about the Exporter::Rename proposal dealing with this, too, as it
> makes X opt-in, except at that point you're still adding a module to core
> that people have to use to benefit. Why not add Exporter::Tiny (or
> alternatives) and get all the extra features instead of Exporter plus a
> tiny bit of sugar?
The problem here is, "makes X opt-in". Assuming a miracle happens and
every CPAN authors decides within a month [1] whether to opt their modules
in or not, CPAN has now two groups of modules: those that haven't opt-in,
and don't make it easy to export to a different name, and those that
have opted in, and will break their downstream when switching exporters.
Are we than in a better situation then just adding the proposed feature?
My opinion is, we aren't.
Abigail
[1] In practise, after many years, people will not have made that decision.
It will take years before Joe R. CPANauthor even realizes there's a
choice to be made.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next