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