Philip Mak wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:05:52PM -0700, Joshua Chamas wrote: > > but having XMLSubs all go to includes is sometimes overkill. > > > > Obviously this points to a weakness in the system, to have to > > do these things. This might be better supported if all XMLSubs > > are handled by one default subroutine > > or have some config like XMLSubsHandler my::handler > > > > which would take as an argument the name of the XMLSubs tag > > as one of its arguments > > That sounds like a potentially good idea. I can only see two problems > that would arise if Apache::ASP switched to that scheme: (1) backwards > compatibility, and (2) ending up juggling lots of files. >
The only advantage I really see to the handler approach is being able to effectively AUTOLOAD behavior of undefined XMLSubs at runtime by having a default switch for them to fall into. Of course, one could just create an AUTOLOAD subroutine, but that would have to be done on a per package basis. Its sounds like neither Philip nor I need this XMLSubs extension, so unless I hear otherwise, I will not move on the idea. --Josh _________________________________________________________________ Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc. NodeWorks Founder Huntington Beach, CA USA http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
