Following are replies to Dan and Andrew:
>From: "Dan Horne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It seems to me that the namespace issue is problematic. ... but what if I
unknowingly wrote a plugin that uses the same attribute,
>From what I gather, plug-ins rely upon a namespace mechanism C::A
recommends. Why can't applications extending C::A have a similar namespace?
What if C::A made a hash ref available for application use? Something like
$self->{appl{}} which would be available to the application extending C::A?
Someone else alluded to overriding C:A's "new" method and that this would
allow control of how $self is created? I could have a $self and access how I
like? And a part of it would be C:A's which I would access how C::A
dictates? Do you know how that is done?
That's what I'm getting at. I can understand I must access C::A how it
dictates. But, I'm extending C::A. Why can't I have my own area to access
however I want. And, if I choose not to use setter/getter routines (for
performance reasons?) it shouldn't be a problem since my extension of the
class is my own extension and I should be able to be subject myself to my
own coding?
>From: "Andrew Brosnan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I used to think along the same lines as you. Then this guy
named Damian set my a$$ straight ;-). He had a pretty good book out:
'Object Oriented Perl' from Manning.
Sam Tregar made the same suggestion to me a few months ago. I will make more
of any effort to get the book and read it.
Thanks,
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
