Re^2: Windows Services, Win32::Daemon, Threading, and SOAP::Lite

"clean" is such an 'airey-fairy' and subjective term that it is impossible to answer

Entirely true, of course. However, in my short time on PM, I've learned that most monks seem to give petitioners the benefit of the doubt on what "clean" means and infer, instead, that they really mean "recommended best practices". Yes, we can still get 12 opinions from 10 people (I realise this isn't exactly what you said - I can count ;-}), but perhaps that will help narrow down the question. I don't think "best practices" are quite so subjective. Still subjective, but should be much less so.

Comment on Re^2: Windows Services, Win32::Daemon, Threading, and SOAP::Lite

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Windows Services, Win32::Daemon, Threading, and SOAP::Lite by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 12, 2005 at 18:01 UTC
... most monks seem to give petitioners the benefit of the doubt on what "clean" means and infer, ... For some, maybe most questions, I agree with you that what would consistitute 'clean' or 'best practice' is fairly obvious and you can infer, and answer on that basis. For this particular question, I think it is much less clear. If you were to take a survey of the Monks asking them about the four components of the OPs title, I would not be at all surprised if you got a large percentage, maybe even a majority, that would suggest that anything that used threads, or anything that used Win32 for that matter, could never be considered clean. From my personal bias, I have no problem with those two, but SOAP (and many things that utilise XML) just seems like a cumbersome and clumsy way of doing what could be done more simply and easily without. From the description given, the OP appears to have already given considerable thought to the overall requirements of his task, and chosen a workable and possibly optimal solution for it's implementation given the environment in which he needs to operate. Given that level of detail of his design, I could not see a way to make positive suggestions in the absence of either working code that could be made 'more clean', or specific implementation problems to solve. Without sight of his code to critique, nor problems to address, the only advice I could see as applicable, was "Do a good job". If you have better insight as to what changes he should make his code, or design alternatives he should consider, without requiring further information, by all means offer them--to him. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal? "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Windows Services, Win32::Daemon, Threading, and SOAP::Lite
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Nov 12, 2005 at 18:01 UTC

... most monks seem to give petitioners the benefit of the doubt on what "clean" means and infer, ...

For some, maybe most questions, I agree with you that what would consistitute 'clean' or 'best practice' is fairly obvious and you can infer, and answer on that basis. For this particular question, I think it is much less clear.

If you were to take a survey of the Monks asking them about the four components of the OPs title, I would not be at all surprised if you got a large percentage, maybe even a majority, that would suggest that anything that used threads, or anything that used Win32 for that matter, could never be considered clean.

From my personal bias, I have no problem with those two, but SOAP (and many things that utilise XML) just seems like a cumbersome and clumsy way of doing what could be done more simply and easily without.

From the description given, the OP appears to have already given considerable thought to the overall requirements of his task, and chosen a workable and possibly optimal solution for it's implementation given the environment in which he needs to operate.

Given that level of detail of his design, I could not see a way to make positive suggestions in the absence of either working code that could be made 'more clean', or specific implementation problems to solve.

Without sight of his code to critique, nor problems to address, the only advice I could see as applicable, was "Do a good job".

If you have better insight as to what changes he should make his code, or design alternatives he should consider, without requiring further information, by all means offer them--to him.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

[reply]