"Drieux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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.
<snip />
> 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?
Yep. The end of the block reinstates the package to the one in effect before
the package was changed inside the block, with the added benefit ( or
drawback, depending on which side of the "data hiding" war you are on ) of
lexical identifiers being hidden from the code outside of the block.
<snip />
> > 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.
>
I agree with you. At this point, its not about writing reuseable components,
its about making those reuseable components _easy_ to reuse. I guess the
best I can do for you is to resuggest checking out the appservers on CPAN.
Actually write the same app multiple times, once using CGI::Application,
once using Template::Toolkit and Class::DBI, and so on. Then audit the
sources for the ideas you like best.
have fun,
Todd W.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
