On Oct 13, 2004, at 9:31 AM, William McKee wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:48:06AM +0900, Thilo Planz wrote:All these functions can still be implemented as separate modules,
but I think the more popular plugins should ship with the core package.
OK, I follow you now. Still not sure that I agree with shipping plugins with the core package though. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
Agreed. I just assume see a Bundle::CGI::Application for those who want such a thing. I for one, do not.
The nice thing about this approach with Perl's subroutine export mechanism for plugins is that it is quite transparent for the user where the code really comes from.
Yes, I agree. I think Mark's suggestion to setup plugins to have their methods explicitly imported is important in this regard.
I need to ask a really stupid question here since I dropped back in after the plugin discussion was had. What is the difference between a CGI::Application plugin and an imported/inherited class? From reading the documentation and looking at some of these modules it seems to be a matter of semantics and little else. (I probably just squarely inserted my foot in my mouth.) Perhaps my background in MT is what is tripping me up because a plugin actively hooks into that system via specific API calls rather then the app hooking into it.
You may now point out how ignorant I am being. ;)
<tim/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
