On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:36:46 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote
> Simon Flack:
> > Now I've pretty much stated the obvious, I need to get something off my
> > chest and eat some of my words. In a previous email, I said I'd like to
> > see Maypole stabilise and have few (if any) backwardly incompatible
> > changes. Now, in general I'm pretty happy with the model and the view,
> > but I have a bit of problem with the controller. I think there have
> > been both positive and negitive developments in that area. ...
> > I believe this separation will make Maypole easier to understand and use.
> > It should also make it a lot easier to unit test.
>
> Great idea! But can we get it working, stable and backwards
> compatible *first*?! Resist the urge to hack - there's always plenty
> of time for that later.
Absolutely. It just presented a bit of an obstacle. If this were a personal
project I'd fire up my editor and transfer code from brain, but I didn't want
to do that here. I think communicating the idea has done the trick though - I
should be able to concentrate on documentation, unit tests, etc.
To start, I'd like to get Maypole working with Devel::Cover so we can get an
idea of unit test coverage. Unfortunately, when I tried it the other day it
sat there for a long time, apparently not doing anything. It might have
something to do with UNIVERSAL::require.
--simonflk
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT