Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Development, Plugins and Globals :

[STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer

Quote Reply
[STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
I opened this thread to discuss the standard of Common Function Libraries (CFL), we may use in our LSQL plugins. Nobody is forced to use these standards, but would be fine to have a standard, which is aggreed by most of LSQL plugin developers.

This problem was originally suggested several times by Ian, but I do not remember that there was a final solution or standard how to do it. Let me know, if I missed it...

If we have a standard for CFL-s, the developers may use the CFL-s of other developers, and may create their install.pm the way to check if there is already installed the required version of a CFL, or newer version.

I plan to create a common function library for myself, where I will place my commonly used libraries, modules, under /admin/Plugins/ path in directory with standard name.
My opinion is, that each plugin developer may have his own CFL, since others may have usedcsame files in their developments...

I think there would be 2 possible solutions:

A) Using /admin/Plugins/common-W33-v1.0.0/ directory, which name already includes the version for version checking
The directory naming convention is the following:
1) starts with word "common"
2) - delimiter follows
3) Plugin developer name (short one, the most known)
4) - delimiter follows
5) the version number follows

B) Using /admin/Plugins/common-W33/ directory and a "version" file for version checking
- The current CFL version identifying solution is, to have a file named "version" in "common-W33" directory, which have the only content: current version of the common library release, e.g. "v1.0.0". This will be used to identify by an install script, if the needed version or newer is available.

I would prefer the solution A) .

I would be curious about opinion of other plugin developers (especially Ian, who originally suggested that), what they think about this CFL standard suggestion?
Which of the suggested ways above is better?
Would be there a better solution than these?

Opinions, comments are appreciated.

Best regards,
Webmaster33


Paid Support
from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...
Subject Author Views Date
Thread [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer webmaster33 4561 Aug 12, 2002, 2:36 AM
Thread Re: [webmaster33] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
Paul 4462 Aug 12, 2002, 2:43 AM
Thread Re: [Paul] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
webmaster33 4453 Aug 12, 2002, 2:49 AM
Thread Re: [webmaster33] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
Ian 4485 Aug 12, 2002, 10:24 AM
Thread Re: [Ian] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
webmaster33 4482 Aug 12, 2002, 10:39 AM
Thread Re: [webmaster33] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
Paul 4446 Aug 12, 2002, 10:45 AM
Thread Re: [Paul] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
webmaster33 4432 Aug 12, 2002, 10:53 AM
Thread Re: [webmaster33] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
Paul 4412 Aug 12, 2002, 10:58 AM
Post Re: [Paul] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
webmaster33 4391 Aug 12, 2002, 11:30 AM
Thread Re: [webmaster33] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
yogi 4383 Aug 12, 2002, 11:22 AM
Post Re: [yogi] [STANDARD] Common Function Library (CFL) for each plugin developer
webmaster33 4386 Aug 12, 2002, 11:32 AM