Nathan Byrd wrote: [...]
Sorry for taking so long to get back with you. I've finally gotten a chance to start looking at this again. Making the module changes with hashes does seem to simplify things. As to performance - besides your point above about most of the work happening in the scripts, I believe that this shouldn't be worse than mod_perl 1.x anyway since it is also based on hash objects. I suppose most people probably avoid PerlRun or Registry as well if optimization is that important to them that they would actually care about the performance difference between an array based object and hash based object.
Also, I followed your suggestion and skipped making accessors for each member. When I started implementing them it seemed a little excessive when using a hash based object.
Below is patches to RegistryCooker and RegistryLoader to use hash based objects. The following is a patched and tested (passes make test) against the latest CVS. Please let me know what you think.
This patch does nothing, but replaced array based object with hash based one, right? that's fine with me. Thank you.
re: No accessors provided. So if tomorrow I fancy to change some key names, I can't do that since it'll break sub-classes, right? What if we need to add a new key? this may clobber the sub-classes private keys? If so, at least I'd suggest the subclasses to take safety precautions and name their keys as whatever_unique_string_ + attribute, e.g. par_foo, par_bar?
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
