[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2002/09/15]
On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 11:17:42PM +0100, Richard Clamp said:
> Documentation. The api docs suck ass. There isn't any documentation
> for all this new-fangled stuff in Siesta::Message so I still don't
> know what ->bounce does.
Was going to add that this morning. I'm not totally happy with
Message->send, ->bounce and ->reply
> Also nacho and tequila need real manpages,
> even if they just refer to Siesta::UserGuide.
How do you mean? Proper man pages as in 'well formed' or proper man
pages as in 'more like the stuff that's in doc/MANUAL'? Speaking of
which - any clever ideas about how doc/MANUAL could be autoturned into
pod on install?
> Installing stuff. I see there have been some docs going in that
> explain what the installation routines don't do for you. This strikes
> me as patching in the wrong direction.
I was just kind of documenting what I had to do to get it working which
was quicker than trying to write something that worked out what the mail
and http users were and then making a new group and adding those users
to that new group. And it was better than nothing at all.
> Siesta::Storage::DBI - works well enough, but there's entirely too
> much duplicated code, and the config stuff that lives there is still
> too clever.
s/clever/not well documented enough/ ?
It's not really that complicated. If it's passed both a user and a list
then it looks up the config value for per-user, per-list. If that's not
found then it trys per-user, then per-list and then default.
Only passed a list? Then try per-list and then default. Only a user?
Per-user then default.
> Siesta::Send::*->process. Um, process seems like the wrong verb.
> How does C<send> sound?
Sure. I just used C<process> to be consistent with Plugin.pm and
Siesta.pm
> Siesta::Plugin::Send now munges every message it sends out because
> that's how Siesta::Message->{to, from} work.
>
> Siesta::Message->{reply,send} fatally munge the message body and
> headers, which prevents me doing something cool like:
This is bad and wrong and the result of hacks layered upon hacks. Mea
maxima culpa.
> Test coverage sucks as
Really? I thought that the last time you did a coverage (I can't here, I
don't have 5.6.1) test it actually covered quite a lot.
Simon
Generated at 13:56 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52