Re: module management in enterprise?

my guess is that there won't be many module upgrades.

I would guess your guess is wrong. Consider what will happen if a legacy application requires one version of a module and a new application needs a new version. This is more common than you might think - some CPAN authors aren't as careful about backwards compatibility as others!

Of course, I imagine it comes as no surprise that I prefer the Krang method. It's worked great for us and I definitely plan to use it on any projects I get involved with in the future. I suppose it's a matter of personal taste, but I find packaging an application as a self-contained entity is quite clean. External dependencies and complex setup procedures seem ugly to me...

-sam

Comment on Re: module management in enterprise?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: module management in enterprise? by Qiang (Friar) on Apr 05, 2007 at 03:15 UTC
Consider what will happen if a legacy application requires one version of a module and a new application needs a new version. This is more common than you might think - some CPAN authors aren't as careful about backwards compatibility as others! in that case, what about i do: update the module from the central location. and in the legacy app, install the older module in local lib (`$Project_Root/lib`) and add a `use lib '$Project_Root/lib'` to make sure it continue use the older module. back to the krang way, I have looked at Krang many times recently and learned a lot about building large Perl app. Krang includes src of all modules and the krang_build makes it easy to build krang from scratch. the `Krang::Platform` looks easy enough to adopt to our environment. but I don't feel like building every modules out of src for every release or rebuilding a module for different app. instead, I would like to compile the module once, all the prerequsite modules and reuse them in other apps (copy the modules to the app's local lib) when approriate.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: module management in enterprise? by samtregar (Abbot) on Apr 05, 2007 at 16:57 UTC
Sounds like you're going to do both then - have global shared modules and local copies as necessary. To me that seems ugly and likely to be error-prone. You'll probably find out you need a local copy only after things break - after the module you want to copy is overwritten! Not an insurmountable problem by any means, but something I don't ever have to worry about... -sam	[reply]