我应该使用哪个框架来编写模块? [英] Which framework should I use to write modules?

问题描述

编写模块的最佳框架是什么- ExtUtils :: MakeMaker (h2xs )或 Module :: Build ?

What's the best framework for writing modules -- ExtUtils::MakeMaker (h2xs) or Module::Build?

推荐答案

注意.该建议已过时. Module :: Build已从Perl核心中删除，但作为CPAN模块存在.优点和缺点仍然存在，而我对MakeMaker的看法仍然存在.

NOTE This advice is out of date. Module::Build has been removed from the Perl core but lives on as a CPAN module. The pros and cons still stand, and my opinions about MakeMaker still stand.

作为ExtUtils :: MakeMaker的前维护者，我喜欢推荐Module :: Build，因为MakeMaker令人震惊. Module :: Build更好地组合在一起.但这不是您关心的问题，我将提出给您的麻烦最少"的答案.

As the former maintainer of ExtUtils::MakeMaker, I like to recommend Module::Build because MakeMaker is a horror show. Module::Build is so much better put together. But those aren't your concerns and I'll present my "least hassle for you" answer.

由于在所有Perl中，Module :: Build的支持都不是100％，所以请从MakeMaker开始.如果您要进行任何自定义，请切换到Module :: Build.由于它们的基本布局，选项和界面几乎相同，因此将很轻松.看上去很诱人，请避免使用Module :: Install.

Because Module::Build support is not 100% in place through all of Perl, start with MakeMaker. If you want to do any customization at all, switch to Module::Build. Since their basic layout, options and interface are almost identical this will be painless. As seductive as it looks, avoid Module::Install.

幸运的是，Module :: Build可以模拟MakeMaker，这可以帮助一些人，但是如果您要进行任何自定义，则无济于事.参见 Module :: Build :: Compat .

Fortunately, Module::Build can emulate MakeMaker which helps some, but doesn't help if you're going to do any customization. See Module::Build::Compat.

对于使用Module :: Build的CPAN发行版来说还不错.现在，在CPAN上有足够的Module :: Build东西了，每个人都已经开始引导它了.

For CPAN releases using Module::Build is fine. There's enough Module::Build stuff on CPAN now that everyone's dealt with getting it bootstrapped already.

最后，新的 configure_requires 选项允许CPAN外壳在开始构建模块之前，他们先知道要安装Module :: Build.不幸的是，只有最新的CPAN shell才了解configure_requires.

Finally, the new configure_requires option lets CPAN shells know to install Module::Build before they can start building the module. Unfortunately only the latest CPAN shells know about configure_requires.

哦，无论做什么，都不要使用h2xs(除非您正在编写XS代码...甚至还要考虑一下).

Oh, whatever you do don't use h2xs (unless you're writing XS code... and even then think about it).

• 与Perl一起提供，并由Perl内核使用(因此它是活跃的 保持下去，并将永远保持下去
• 一切都知道如何处理Makefile.PL.
• 大多数模块创作文档将涵盖MakeMaker.
• 使用make(那些知道make的人可以调试和修补构建 过程)

• Comes with Perl and used by the Perl core (therefore it is actively maintained and will remain so forever)
• Everything knows what to do with a Makefile.PL.
• Most module authoring documentation will cover MakeMaker.
• Uses make (those who know make can debug and patch the build process)

• 需要make(例如Windows)
• 难以自定义
• 更难以自定义和制作跨平台
• 出现问题时很难调试(除非您了解make)

• 更容易自定义/子类化
• 纯Perl
• 易于调试(Perl)
• 可以通过几种方式模拟MakeMaker
• CPAN shell将为您安装Module :: Build

• Module :: Build维护者(甚至包括所有Perl Toolchain Gang)都讨厌
• 较旧版本的CPAN客户端(包括CPANPLUS)对Module :: Build一无所知.

• 光滑的界面
• 捆绑包本身，您有一个已知的版本
• 一切都知道如何处理Makefile.PL

• 需要化妆
• 始终使用捆绑版，容易受到外部破坏
• 难以在其界面之外进行自定义
• 带有MakeMaker的胆量，所以新的MakeMaker版本最终会破坏它.
• 不知道如何使用v2元规范生成META文件 (越来越多的新工具问题)

• Requires make
• Always uses bundled version, vulnerable to external breakage
• Difficult to customize outside its interface
• Mucks with the guts of MakeMaker so a new MakeMaker release will eventually break it.
• Does not know how to generate a META file using the v2 meta-spec (increasingly a problem with newer tools)

这篇关于我应该使用哪个框架来编写模块?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！