in reply to Re^2: modular app development - where do your modules live?
in thread modular app development - where do your modules live?

I emphasize using Perl as a community language and am turning to you to get perspectives on an interesting subject about Perl software engineering. What exactly is wrong about soliciting the advice of a respected bunch of peers on a subject?

Trying to use the community to overrule your boss is generally a bad idea. ;)

It's not that you are turning to the community to help. It's that your boss has already said what they think is the correct solution, and you want to refute that with a buch of comments from a website. Not a good plan.

I don't mean testing the modules, I mean testing the (web/command-line) app which uses the modules.

If you write good module tests, that should be a very short process.

  • Comment on Re^3: modular app development - where do your modules live?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: modular app development - where do your modules live?
by metaperl (Curate) on Jul 20, 2009 at 17:24 UTC
    Trying to use the community to overrule your boss is generally a bad idea. ;)
    I'm using the community to get a wider perspective on the issue. You seem to think I have a stake in the fire and a viewpoint to defend. You also seem to think he does. In the past, he has read documentation I have pointed him to and changed based on the validity of the arguments. For instance, he had planned to use Template to deliver our website but I pointed him to HTML::Seamstress and he changed to Seamstress.
    It's not that you are turning to the community to help. It's that your boss has already said what they think is the correct solution, and you want to refute that with a buch of comments from a website.
    You are putting intentions in my mouth that were never stated. And "a bunch of comments from a website" is a major putdown of the contributors to this thread. Here we have people, some of them worldwide respected experts, putting time into explaining and justifying their point of view and you want to devalue that as "a bunch of comments from a website".

    I didnt say that was my plan of action. And it is not. I simply want to see what others think about a point of contention. And so far, the responses have been useful.

    My intention is to grow into best practices from well-informed responses, not stay entrenched in my prior practices if they are clearly inadequate.

    That being said, my boss is a staunch advocate of DBIx::Password and that led to my recent scorching critical review of that module. I think next time, I will simply ask for ideas and opinions on various approaches and leave "who-said-what" out of it. This was supposed to be a scholarly discussion on an issue and I really didnt need to bring in that much context. Now, without any supporting evidence, you want to make false claims about my motivations.

[reply]

      Honestly, I didn't think you actually were going to try to use this to change your boss's mind. But I've known people who would, and your original post sounded much like something they might use to start the argument. And as for degenerating the contributors of this thread: That was actually the point of stating it that way: To show how someone who isn't familiar with Perlmonks might see using it as a reference.

      We monks know better, of course. But it is hard to convey fine details of levels of experience and intent through the text wall. As I've just shown, by overstating the explanation in my post above.

[reply]
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        Thank you. I was going to acknowledge you in the docs, but I dont know your name :)
[reply]

In Section Meditations