Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine


by tye (Sage)
on Sep 27, 2002 at 23:44 UTC ( #201384=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to (kudra: CPANPLUS) Re: To install a module...
in thread To install a module...

Please, please, please, call it Net::CPAN. Then we can get CGI renamed Net::CGI.

        - tye (I don't supposed you can rename B and O also)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(kudra) Re2: CPANPLUS
by kudra (Vicar) on Sep 28, 2002 at 17:52 UTC
    Some things are known about the name:
    • It won't contain the word CPAN (Andreas did offer the use of provided there was some backwards compatibility, but many people feel the name is poorly chosen).
    • It will be a top-level name (to protest top-level names in general, talk to p5p not me ;)

    The meaning it will attempt to capture is beyond the scope of the Net:: modules. More time is probably spent determining if you have the Net:: modules than using them... At any rate, CPANPLUS is aimed more at module management than just fetching.

    /me is staying out of this entire quagmire of naming and will just call it CPANPLUS until it gets another name...

    Ps. To comment on sauoq's post: CPANPLUS does allow you to fetch modules from your local file system. I can't say about since I don't use it.

Re: (tye)Re: CPANPLUS
by sauoq (Abbot) on Sep 28, 2002 at 00:37 UTC
    Please, please, please, call it Net::CPAN. Then we can get CGI renamed Net::CGI.

    Yuck. No. I wouldn't agree with either of those names. Both CGI's and CPAN's relationship to networking is peripheral.

    CPAN uses various means to retrieve modules over the network but its real job is to determine dependencies, build, and install those modules. Certainly CPAN could have the functionality to access a local archive via the filesystem rather than the network. I don't use CPAN or CPANPLUS (I answered "make" on the poll) so for all I know one or both already have that functionality. It might be especially useful where institutions keep a local CPAN mirror and make it available to their user base via NFS.

    CGI is simply a platform independent interface by which information servers may run external programs. In reality, this is only true for some definitions of "platform independence" and "information servers" but that's its stated goal.1 It currently requires that the external program knows some things about the protocol that the information server is using but the actual network communication takes place through the server itself.

    So, I think putting either CPAN or CGI in Net::* would be a mistake.

    I wouldn't mind seeing name changes for B and O though.

    1That is, its the stated goal of the draft CGI specification not of the CGI module.

    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

      Sorry, your claim that isn't for networking is, well, silly.

      As for CPANPLUS, if they want to keep "CPAN" in the name, then the primary way they are going to attach to CPAN is via a network. I don't mind in the least if they decide that this is not really the central purpose of the module and call it something having to do with "module management" or whatever.

      But the point is that the only modules that don't have "::" in their names should be all-lowercase, that is, pragmas. See Filehandles vs. Packages: And the winner is... for one good reason why.

      Other reasons include the "I used CGI" problem. Having a "::" in a module name can avoid a lot of confusion.

              - tye (but I plan to switch to "Person::Tye")
        Sorry, your claim that isn't for networking is, well, silly.

        Saying so doesn't make it true. isn't for networking. It doesn't contain any networking code. It doesn't read from or write to sockets. It reads from stdin and its environment and writes to stdout. (Under certain circumstances, it will also read or write files.)

        CGI is an interface between server software (specifically an information server) and external programs. The interface defines what information the server makes available to those programs as well as how that information is made available. It also imposes some requirements on the response.

        As it stands now, external programs implementing CGI are required to "understand" some of the underlying protocol. Although this isn't desirable, in practice it is a minimal requirement: a script must output a content header. In some cases, NPH scripts for example, programs are allowed to handle more of the application-level protocol communication rather than just the content.

        CGI is really its own thing. Ironically, the only CGI RFC is for SIP CGI. There has been quite a bit of work done on specifying CGI in general and "WWW CGI" in particular. Unfortunately, the effort has dwindled. I encourage you and anyone that reads this to visit, join the mailing lists, and offer your support. The problem seems to be that people already think CGI is a standard simply because it is ubiquitous. If enough people show their interest, the author, Ken Coar, will almost certainly pick up the torch again.

        Failing that, please don't suggest that we rename the CGI module Net::CGI. That would be reinforcing the misconception that CGI deals directly with networking, which it does not. Leaving it as a top level module makes the most sense.

        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
Re: (tye)Re: CPANPLUS
by Dog and Pony (Priest) on Sep 30, 2002 at 21:08 UTC
    I'd prefer something like Module::CPAN, Install::CPAN or Update::CPAN though I agree with your other reasoning (in later posts). As for CGI, well, how about Interface::CGI? *Grin*

    Yes, that means I'd like to see the PPM module named Install::PPM (or whichever) instead too.

    What I really would like to see is something like Module::Build get used. Like the guy says, what on earth is make doing in the install process? That is what usually causes me trouble when trouble does arise. (Nope. Haven't tried it. Just liked the idea. And it would be a good namespace to go under).

    You have moved into a dark place.
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
      Maybe ExtUtils::CPAN? Or is that namespace's topic a different one?

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://201384]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (3)
As of 2020-09-20 03:52 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    If at first I donít succeed, I Ö

    Results (117 votes). Check out past polls.