On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:40:52AM -0400, Michael Maraist wrote:
> > Many mechanisms exist to make perl code and data persistant. They should
> > be cleaned up, unified, and documented widely within the core
> > documentation.
>
> But doesn't this go against TMTOWTDI. :)
On the one hand, there's TMTOWTDI. On the other hand, there's
overly complicating things with a maze of twisty, turny modules,
mostly alike.
I'm not arguing against TMTOWTDI. I'm arguing that what we have
isn't making easy things easy, but actually inadvertantly making
easy things harder than they should be.
> Different people might have different requirements. Portability would want
> all ASCII, large apps might want compacted (if not compressed) storage,
> while others might want highly-efficient storage.
No complaints. Why do they need to be provided by mutually exclusive
sets of modules?
> You might want to extend this RFC to include
> information about existing serialization techniques (which tend to be more
> sophisticated than raw dumping of a data-structure).
Actually, I don't. The *DBM_File modules work, as do Data::Dumper
and its kin. This RFC is a request to improve the interoperability
of those modules, not implement any of them from scratch.
Z.
