Geoffrey Young wrote:
it's definition is elsewhere, in
Apache::RequestUtil, but Apache::RequestUtil defines
Apache::RequestRec::is_initial_req(). the end result is that you can have
the Perlish $r->is_initial_req() instead of the bulky
Apache::RequestUtil::is_initial_req($r).
I would much prefer the longer one. It's more typing, but it also is much clearer. The current behavior just looks wrong to me.
But Apache::RequestUtil::is_initial_req($r) is wrong. Because it a method and not a function. It makes it impossible to subclass it.
That's just silly. Most people will need to load: Apache::Request(Rec|IO|Util) and may be Apache::Server(Util)? I see no legitimate reason to make things obscure.
Alternatively, you could be sneaky about it and load on demand, hiding this class completely from end users. Here's a simple exampe with no AUTOLOAD evil:
sub is_initial_req { my $self = shift; require Apache::RequestUtil; return Apache::RequestUtil::is_initial_req($self); }
yuck, that's so inefficient.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
