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