Re: [Maypole] (no subject)

From: Marcus Ramberg (marcus at thefeed.no)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 20:31:16 GMT


On 19. nov. 2004, at 19.47, Simon Flack wrote:

> It would mean we could remove Maypole::Application. And I believe it
> untangles
> most of the multiple inheritance mess.

Maypole::Application was meant as a way to select a driver easily,
(Apache::MVC/Maypole::CGI/Apache2::MVC(Before that got integrated into
Maypole). In fact, It probably makes the MI cleaner by making sure your
application only has to inherit from one parent, rather than several,
like we did before. (UserSessionCookie, YAML and so on). It also makes
sure your driver class is at the end of @ISA, so any plugins you might
want can override Maypole's methods.

Removing it won't change the fact that the way Maypole can be extended,
for example to support authentication, is by multiple inhertiance. I'm
not saying I support an architecture based on MI... But removing
Maypole::Application will give you nothing with regarsd to this. You
might not like the way it inserts itself into your application's ISA,
but this is in fact the same way that 'base' and 'spiffy' does it. I
still think this discussion is silly. Let's get some more experience
with the maypole framework and where the actual limitations are before
we start redesigning it...

Marcus



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT