develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2016

Re: Should we bring in Module::Runtime into core?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Sawyer X
December 4, 2016 22:16
Re: Should we bring in Module::Runtime into core?
Message ID:
Let me just clarify two points here.

On 12/04/2016 10:10 PM, James E Keenan wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 11:55 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
>> It has been suggested several times to ship Module::Runtime in core. I
>> have considered it and discussed it with Zefram a little bit yesterday.
> I don't recall those discussions, perhaps because I look more closely
> at RT items than other mailing list entries.  But I will take a look
> at it.  If we decide to go forward, I recommend opening an RT to log
> the inclusion.

The suggestions were not on the list. The short conversation I had with
Zefram was in person. So there would be no RT tickets for these.

>> Here's my basic pitch: Module::Runtime provides users with basic
>> functions that correctly implement a common practice of loading modules
>> at runtime. That's it.
>> Unlike other suggested modules[1], Module::Runtime provides a basic need
>> and is mostly unopinionated[2]. In that sense, it satisfies a common
>> need that is shared by many developers, regardless of their framework of
>> choice.
>> Zefram was willing to provide additional comments for consideration for
>> inclusion or exclusion, and as far as I understand, has no feelings one
>> way or the other regarding it.
>> What do you think?
>> [1] Plack, Dancer2, Moose.
> All of the above are too much for core.

I agree that Plack. Dancer2, and Moose are too much. In fact, that is my
point precisely. Module::Runtime is contrasted by the fact that it is
not a framework, provides a common use-case, and is (mostly)
unopinionated. I might not have done a good job of conveying that,
though. :)

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About