Michael Peters wrote:
Hi Michael
This isn't a "hey, Class::MOP is the new hotness!" change, is it?
I think this was a "hey, Class::MOP is really cool. I bet it would make CGI::App
much simpler...oh wait. Look how slow everything got!". And now we also have
"Look how big everything got!".
So, pretty please, can we have a guarantee from the 'developer in
quesiton' that Class::MOP will not be used?
I've just finished reading Perl Best Practices by Damian Conway, and
compiled a list of 14 class-helper type modules on CPAN (yes, I'm sure
there are more), since I (too) have been wondering how my future work
would develop.
I realize there is no one perfect answer to this question, and Damian's
module Class::Std has a long bug list on RT.
Nevertheless, my vote would be either for Object::InsideOut or
Class::Std, but only if it was necessary to use such a system in the
first place. And is it necessary? This is the question. My feeling is:
No, not for CGI::App.
If you were to start another project, let's call it CGI::Framework, then
sure, investigate such things, but I can't see how CGI::App needs any of
this class/meta-class overhead.
--
Ron Savage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://savage.net.au/index.html
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
