> The following was supposedly scribed by > Mark Stosberg > on Friday 14 November 2003 09:00 am:
>I think I have a similar concern. Here's my own case: I use a custom >sub-class of CGI::Application that I base most of my web-applications >on. Eventually, I would like to distribute some of these on CPAN, with >several of them referring to the same custom sub-class itself. > >However, it don't think the sub-class module itself would be especially >interesting to others-- it might-- but it mostly seems like a set of >personal style choices about how I like to design web-applications. >If it didn't go under an Authors:: namespace, it seems like it would get >some other un-descriptive name like "CGI::Application::MarksSubClass". If you are releasing a module which uses these functions, it seems that you have only a few choices. You could re-write your module to use only standard helper modules (not usually an appealing option, but you shouldn't rule it out.) You could release your helper module without full documentation, and just explain that it is a matter of coding style (e.g. none of the algorithms are really anything new and it just makes some default choices for you and calls functions from other modules.) You could fully-document the helper module (and maybe make it more configurable?) I like this one the best, and maybe others who work in the same manner could benefit from it. Do you think it is possible to boil-down the "you-specific" parts of your module into a config file in your home directory? It would be interesting to see how this would work. You could inline all of the helper module functions at the end of your regular module (maybe a "dist" target in your makefile can automate this for you.) --Eric
