| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Extensions User Design |
| Date: | 2009-06-24 21:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | 38E2A931-8205-498C-9A57-37F3067B705A@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 24, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Actually, I think we should be like Perl here. There is a list of
> standard modules that comes with the base Perl distro, and then
> there are addons, such as you find on CPAN.
Actually, the lesson slowly emerging in the Perl community is that
there should be very few extensions distributed with the core, as
keeping them in sync is a giant PITA and in part responsible for the
duration of time between releases.
A separate distribution of "recommended extensions" would fill the
same need, but not bind core to the schedule of extension updates.
> Beyond standard extensions, I'm not sure we need a committee to
> "approve" extensions. Does Perl have such an animal? I'm fairly wary
> of creating new decision-making bureaucracies.
Agreed. Perl does not have such a thing. PHP does, and it's no doubt
part of the reason that PEAR has so few modules.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-06-24 21:29:58 | Re: Extensions User Design |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-06-24 21:27:01 | Re: Extensions User Design |