> Well, yes, but the way you've designed this, you already run that risk.
>
> Now if you replaced get_scriptname() with get_subroutine(), and found a
> way to abstract out the bits that are different for each $recipient,
> then you could simplify things tremendously, and hopefully make your
> resource needs go way down:
>
> {
> $recipient = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; # This will come from the MTA
> $sub_name = get_subroutine($recipient); # do this in one step
>
> $sub_name->($arg1,$arg2,$arg3);
> }
>
> This will do everything without making any external calls.
>
So you are suggesting I write all the user scripts as diff subroutines
in a single module. That is almost impossible in my case, When I design
the SMTP server I have no idea how many users will be there
According to the current design , the user uses a UI which inturn
creates a file ( a perl script ). The Mailscanner Daemon uses these
scripts when a mail is recvd for a user and takes actions.
Suppose even If I change the UI to write into a single module , the
Module may become a huge file , I dont want such a mess.
I have thought of a different Idea. The user-wise perl script will set
the output in a variable with a global namespace. My main process will
do() the script and simply read the variable.
like
{
$scriptname = get_scriptname($recipient)
do("$scriptname $arg1 $arg2 $arg3");
$output = $global::output;
# This variable is set by the $scriptname
do_something($output);
}
I will try it right away Should work right?
Thanks
Ram
----------------------------------------------------------
Netcore Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Website: http://www.netcore.co.in
Spamtraps: http://cleanmail.netcore.co.in/directory.html
----------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
