Re^2: Unsatisfactory state of Module::Starter stack

It's largely a matter of personal preferences. My template files end in ".tmpl" for example. Also I would want to include some extra files, like certain template files, a minimal CSS files, a .png that I always use etc etc. I got the impression that your module was simply an expression of your personal preferences and I could not see a point in requesting changes based on personal preferences. Nor could I see any value in trying to derive from such a class. So it needs to be a lot more flexible to be useful to me (though of course the defaults can reflect your personal preferences). I suppose philosophically, a Module::Starter::CGIApp has gone too far by its very choice of name. A module that was sufficiently flexible to be of use to me in this context, could be used for things that were not related to CGI::Application. This is why I am drawn to the module that simply tries to derive from Module::Starter::Plugin::Template by filling in the abstract methods with a choice of templating engine. True it is not my favourite templating engine, but this sounds a better bet than any other option.

Comment on Re^2: Unsatisfactory state of Module::Starter stack

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Unsatisfactory state of Module::Starter stack by jaldhar (Vicar) on May 23, 2010 at 03:13 UTC
It's largely a matter of personal preferences. My template files end in ".tmpl" for example. Hmm that doesn't sound like it would be too hard to add. I'll consider it for the next version. Also I would want to include some extra files, like certain template files, a minimal CSS files, a .png that I always use etc etc. Now here we run into the limitations of the Module::Starter architecture. Dist::Zilla with its plugins is far more flexible for what you want to do. I got the impression that your module was simply an expression of your personal preferences and I could not see a point in requesting changes based on personal preferences. Nor could I see any value in trying to derive from such a class. So it needs to be a lot more flexible to be useful to me (though of course the defaults can reflect your personal preferences). Well yes to some extent that's true but only because one has to start somewhere. I would like this module to follow the best practices in the CGI::Application community and in general be as useful to as many people as possible but I can't do that if I don't get feedback. I suppose philosophically, a Module::Starter::CGIApp has gone too far by its very choice of name. A module that was sufficiently flexible to be of use to me in this context, could be used for things that were not related to CGI::Application. FWIW, I use this module to start non-CGIApp modules too. Even though I have to manually remove all the CGIApp bits, it's still less drudgery than creating a distribution by hand. -- જલધર	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Unsatisfactory state of Module::Starter stack
by jaldhar (Vicar) on May 23, 2010 at 03:13 UTC

It's largely a matter of personal preferences. My template files end in ".tmpl" for example.

Hmm that doesn't sound like it would be too hard to add. I'll consider it for the next version.

Also I would want to include some extra files, like certain template files, a minimal CSS files, a .png that I always use etc etc.

Now here we run into the limitations of the Module::Starter architecture. Dist::Zilla with its plugins is far more flexible for what you want to do.

I got the impression that your module was simply an expression of your personal preferences and I could not see a point in requesting changes based on personal preferences. Nor could I see any value in trying to derive from such a class. So it needs to be a lot more flexible to be useful to me (though of course the defaults can reflect your personal preferences).

Well yes to some extent that's true but only because one has to start somewhere. I would like this module to follow the best practices in the CGI::Application community and in general be as useful to as many people as possible but I can't do that if I don't get feedback.

I suppose philosophically, a Module::Starter::CGIApp has gone too far by its very choice of name. A module that was sufficiently flexible to be of use to me in this context, could be used for things that were not related to CGI::Application.

FWIW, I use this module to start non-CGIApp modules too. Even though I have to manually remove all the CGIApp bits, it's still less drudgery than creating a distribution by hand.

--
જલધર

[reply]