Though doing it this way requires the user to maintain a manifest or some sort of class loading system, does it not?
Cheers, Rik On 4 Jan 2013 13:21, "Damien Krotkine" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, top posting... > > An other way is to think about it bottom up instead of top down > > Instead of the parent app including the children packages, we could do : > > package App::Foo; > use Dancer scope => qw(App); > > It's a bit like in relational database where you say who your parent is, > not who your children are. > > It Also avoids to change the parent package every time you add a child. > > Also it makes it possible to use dancer with more than one scope. Not why > it would useful though :) > > We should probably look at breadboard and catalyst, see how they do it. > David, I think you have experience with catalyst? > > And that brings up the fact that we should use a serious tool to handle > dancer 'use' options. Can we try an enhanced sub::exporter or similar? > > Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 à 13:57, David Precious a écrit : > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:28:43 +0100 > Alexis Sukrieh <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the user should be able to say : these apps (packages) share > the same registry, or in other words, these are supposed to be merged > into one app. > > For instance: > > package App; > use Dancer; > use App::Foo; > use App::Bar; > > In this example, everything in Foo and Bar are in a jail, they don't > share hooks or engines. We need a way to tell Dancer to load multiple > apps as one, I'm not sure exactly how the DSL should be extended to > allow that, but here is the idea I have in mind: > > package App; > use Dancer; > consume 'App::Foo', 'App::Bar'; > > That new "consume" keyword would be responsible for loading > everything that is defined in the packages _into_ the current > package. That would be, I think, the most generic and proper way to > share settings, hooks and everything between "apps". > > > Hmm, I like that; the sounds like it could be a good solution to the > problem. > > I definitely think it should be possible to load routes etc from > different packages but have them share a scope for config / hooks etc. > > At $work, we have a very large Dancer app, with routes defined in > various packages (grouped logically); however, we have before hooks > which should run for all routes, and session engine / serializer etc > settings which apply to all; we'd need to be able to do the same with D2 > one way or another. > > Part of me wonders if the auto scope-per-package stuff should be > configurable, so you could request D1-style "all in one" behaviour if > desired, but I'm not sure. > > > -- > David Precious ("bigpresh") <[email protected]> > http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter > www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook > www.preshweb.co.uk/cpan www.preshweb.co.uk/github > > > _______________________________________________ > dancer-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > dancer-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users > >
_______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
