Re: Still Not sure if I agree with myself.

[drieux]

On Sunday, Sep 14, 2003, at 14:00 US/Pacific, Todd W. wrote:
[..]
Beacuse of @ISA being lexically declared, it can't inherit from other
modules. And remember, for a logical scope to be called a closure, you 
have
to be dealing with lexical values.
p0: I knew there was a 'rational' explanation why it is
an 'our @ISA' vice a 'my @ISA' but had not taken the time
to walk it through....
p1: Since I am not 'presuming' any lexical values,
merely a stack of subs - I think 'block' should be
the assertion. It may be a closure, but it will be a block
so that one can 'manage' the 'name space' issues:
        # package main
        {
                package Foo;
                ...
        }
        # back to package main
that part makes good enough sense, eh no?

But I think the part that scares me is that

my $action = {
doDaemon => sub { ..... },
...
};
would get us into the same 'space'?
Not if you declare $action to have its own file or block scope. You 
would
have to define an accessor to access $action.
p2. Normally I do that so that it is in package 'main' so
that I do not have to create an external PM that will
manage it.... This specfic variant was poking at the idea
of saving on typing the 'sub doDamon {}' and then hanging
it in the Hash of Subs with
	{ doDaemon => \&doDaemon , ....}

p3. What I was partially looking at was a
'simpler' way from my traditional approach of
        'things that look like subs should be stuffed into a sub, as
                somewhere along the line they May get clustered into a PM
                somewhere and the code then is simpler to maintain.
And in this case taking advantage of the 'block' that would
allow me to declare a 'package' namespace as one more step
in the general process of getting there...
[..]
If you have a reuseable component that dispatches other
components you can call it an application server, for some
definitions of an application server.
p4. This just makes me NERVOUS. My normal habit is

        make it work
        congeal together what is common to all
        If they really have a common base not unique to this project
                then distill that common base out for re-use...
at which point, I fear I agree with the YA_CGI_AppServer
notion for, as you not SomDefofAppServer... It just worries me.
ciao
drieux
---

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]