Re: [cgiapp] Re: RFC - C::A::Plugin - abstract base class for plugins

[Brett Sanger <suppressed>]

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 12:27:18PM -0700, Bill Catlan wrote:
> However, semantically, we want the plugin to extend
> C::A, not an app module.  It's partly a psychological
> argument I am making and partly a recommended object
> heirarchy.  

Okay, this is where I'm confused.  I'm not DISAGREEING (yet), so much as
not understanding.

I can see the benefit to not having the plugins in the C::A namespace.
I often have hierachies of C::A descended objects across my sites.

I'm not seeing the problem with using the app namespace.  C::A is
intended to be inheirited from.  Different children will want different
plugins loaded.  Obviously you see some problem here I'm missing, so
could you enlighten me.

> otherwise, plugins that only work with certain user
> modules will call themselves C::A plugins, creating a
> mess and result in confusion.

That's a labelling issue, but not really a problem.  If I peddle
CGI::App::Foo, and write dependent plugins that can only be used by
descendants of C::A::F, then my plugins should be C::A::F plugins just
as C::A plugins are C::A.  The fact of which namespace is used is not
involved.

What am I missing?
-- 
SwiftOne  /  Brett Sanger
suppressed   

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed