Re: BSD::Resource

"M.J.T. Guy" <[email protected]> writes:
> William R Ward <[email protected]> wrote
> > I don't think any platform-dependent modules should be in the SDK.  I
> > would advocate one of the following:
> > 
> > 1) A platform-independent interface be developed for this
> > functionality, that just happens not to work on many platforms, or
> 
> Reading the README, it seems that description applies to BSD::Resource.
> It certainly runs on some non-BSD platforms, and there's nothing
> platform dependent in the interface.

Then why is it under the BSD hierarchy?  If the top level part of a
module name is the name of a platform then I think it's safe to assume
it won't work anywhere but that platform.

> We're in danger of hair splitting about terminology.
> I find it difficult to distinguish between the concepts
> "platform-dependent modules" and "a platform-independent interface
> that just happens not to work on many platforms".

What I meant was something like DBI, where the interface is
database-independent, but you need a driver for your particular
database.

> As already noted, it's no more platform dependent than many things in the
> core.
> 
> So I'm in favour of inclusion.

What worries me is what if you install BSD::Resource on, say, a
Mac or Win32 machine where it won't work, and then it fails during the
SDK installation.

If the SDK includes platform-dependent modules, but is smart enough to
not try to install them where they won't work, then I can go along
with including something like this - it makes the tarball a little
bigger, but it won't lead to a screwed-up installation.

--Bill.

-- 
William R Ward        [email protected]      http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret of being creative is making something that's not very new
but just a little bit different in the right direction - Marvin Minsky