Re: [summary] The Conflict of mp1 vs mp2 vs mp22 vs ... vs mpNN

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/12/31]

Stas Bekman <stas@xxxxxx.xxx> writes:

> Randy Kobes wrote:

[...]

>> There's still mod_perl.pm in both packages, though. In mp2,
>> this is just something to define the version, and also to
>> provide a NAME pod section (if I remember correctly, this
>> was inserted for the benefit of search.cpan.org, to get an
>> abstract for the package). Not indexing mp2's mod_perl.pm
>> shouldn't affect search.cpan.org (I believe), as it
>> doesn't rely on the PAUSE indices, but it would
>> mean that one couldn't use (the useful)
>>     PREREQ_PM => {mod_perl => 1.99}
>> in a 3rd party Makefile.PL to specify mp2. Instead, what
>> about adding a mod_perl2.pm to the mp2 distribution, just
>> again defining the version, so that one could use
>>     PREREQ_PM => {mod_perl2 => 1.99}
>> mod_perl.pm would still be provided in the mp2 package
>> (just not indexed by PAUSE), so that constructions like
>>    if ($mod_perl::VERSION > 1.99)
>> would still work.
>
> -1, that will be very confusing as people will start using it for other
> things. 

I'd like to see that -1 backed up with a technical objection;
lots of people are saying that "very confusing" isn't a satisfactory
explanation.  The advantage of the additional mod_perl2.pm package 
is that it is indexable in parallel with the existing mp1 tarball.
For mp2-only products, this would seem to be an advantage because
they now have an easy way of asserting that fact in their prereqs. 
mp1-only products would need a way of saying "hold on, I'm not mp2
compatible yet!", which is something a test suite or a load-time 
check will take care of.  Cross-compatible products would be 
unaffected.

What's the downside?  That folks listing mod_perl 1.99 as a prereq 
can't be satisfied?  That's something that may change in the future,
so I'm not worried about that problem.

> We will end up with some code requiring mod_perl.pm and other
> mod_perl2.pm.

That's ok with me.

>> The use of a Bundle in a prerequisite is similar, but the
>> thing with those (if I understand the usage correctly) one
>> must explicitly specify a package version to use, so that if
>> a later version of a package is released, one must update
>> the Bundle file to use that package, if desired.
>
> The idea was to have the Bundle included in the same distro, so when a
> new mod_perl.pm is released, the Bundle will be updated too. I prefer
> the Bundle workaround vs. mod_perl2.pm, since the former makes it
> clear that it's only a CPAN thing and not to be used at the real code
> (other than in prerequisite hash. 


Err, but then folks would need to adjust their prereqs (from say 
"Apache::Resource" to "Bundle::mod_perlX"), right?  Why do you see 
this as preferable to the mod_perl2.pm solution?

        -- 
        Joe Schaefer


-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html