On 2005-07-04, Mark Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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?
Remember your application is extending C::A. You can do that yourself if
you want.
> 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?
You can already access it how you 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?
There is no split object ownership.
> 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?
I'd like to see your benchmarks showing how using 'param()' was your
performance bottleneck.
How about this: You can use CGI::Application, modify it however your
like to suit your needs, and then never upgrade it. Then it will do
whatever you want and you can be sure of future compatibility.
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]
