To assume network or not

I've created a module that at first, was designed to be standalone. Since, I've updated it to make it network-capable, and it now, in one specific mode, acts as a distribution centre, commanding other systems to perform the tasks and return the results. The standard mode of single-system is still available

I've found that now I have to manage the results from the local instance a lot differently than the remote results, so I'm effectively doing a lot of duplicate work.

My options are: maintain the project and handle both the local results and the network results seamlessly, fork out the module and spin off a ::Standalone version that functions like the pre-network version, or assume by default that at minimum, localhost traffic will always work, and have the local procedures work over a network call to a localhost listener, even if the user doesn't want to ever use the distribution aspect of the dist.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it ok to assume at minimum local (ie. localhost) network comms in today's world, or would you take one of the other approaches (or even one I haven't considered)?

Comment on To assume network or not Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: To assume network or not by VinsWorldcom (Prior) on Apr 12, 2016 at 00:22 UTC
For me it's tough without knowing what the standalone and network versions "do". As-in: does your module provide a client only to access a server (not part of your module) on a remote (or local) system? I think if you're providing the client *and* server aspect in your distribution, then the connecting to localhost is the way to go. If you're only providing one half of that client / server relationship in your module, I would deal with the headache or potentially spin off the ::Standalone version if I could make the change transparent to any current potential users. If that ::Standalone broke the API, then I'd just stick with managing the local and network results separately. Then again, I'm not that good a programmer, so most of my work is probably redundant anyway and so I wouldn't notice how inefficient I was being.	[reply]
Re: To assume network or not by RonW (Parson) on Apr 25, 2016 at 19:07 UTC
Is it ok to assume at minimum local (ie. localhost) network comms in today's world...?</i Since a direct answer to this question wasn't given, I will answer. This is a mostly safe assumption. Very high probability any machine your program will be run on will have at least "localhost" network functionality.	[reply]
Re^2: To assume network or not by stevieb (Canon) on Apr 27, 2016 at 18:55 UTC
Although this is a pretty safe bet, I decided against it in this case. Here's what I was building when I asked this question: Automate and dispatch unit test runs across perl/berrybrew on remote Windows and Unix systems. Thanks for the feedback!	[reply]
Re: To assume network or not by Anonymous Monk on Apr 11, 2016 at 23:12 UTC
What are your thoughts on this? New thing steal old thing name? Meh, your brand s it ok to assume at minimum local (ie. localhost) network comms in today's world, or would you take one of the other approaches (or even one I haven't considered)? It ok state requirement if it true cave is good	[reply]