I am really perplexed by people who think that they can determine which modules are good to use by flipping through the realease dates. What about modules that just work and don't need frequent releases? What about modules that have prereqs which are frequently updated even if the module itself is not frequently updated? Sure, infrequent updates may be a sign a trouble (taken in connjunction with other information) but to use that as the main criterion for judging whether a module is good makes about as much sense as going by the version numbers in a system where version numbers are an individual author's choice (module X is version 2.3 and module Y is only 0.27, so module X must be more mature).
If you want to know what modules are "in good shape", ask here, read the CPAN reviews, look at rt.cpan.org, and, heaven forfend, try the module, read it's source, google for previous user complaints ...
And why is the first choice "I'll write my own" rather than exploring how you might contribute to existing modules. ... Oh that's another rant, nevermind. (and I certainly don't mean "never write your own")
In reply to Re: Persistence framework
by jZed
in thread Persistence framework
by jeteve
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |