Perrin Harkins wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:33 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote: > >>some other thoughts I've had >> >> - Apache2::OK seems odd. >> >> - ditto with Apache2->server. >> >>in both these cases Apache.pm is a virtual package with no corresponding >>real file, so I'm not sure that we need to use Apache2. except that it >>would be consistent with all the other Apache2 foo. but Apache2::OK seems >>really, really strange to me. > > > It doesn't seem strange to me. This is Apache2, and OK is a constant it > provides.
ok. > > Dumb question: Why isn't it Apache2::Const::OK? hmm... well, I think it evolved somewhat like this... in mp1 we had OK, but it was the same symbol duplicated in each package which is wasteful mp2 reduced the waste by precompiling constants into a single namespace (leaving the old OK as an option, though). Apache:: probably seemed as good as anything since it was both short and had precident - at the time we had quite a few other things in the Apache:: namespace. currently in mp2 we've shifted away from Apache:: as a namespace, in favor of things living in real packages. the exceptions to this are the constants and a handful of class methods like Apache->request and Apache->server. with the migration away from Apache:: we didn't know exactly what do to with these outliers, so we left them as is. anyway, that's what I can recall off the top of my head. personally, Apache2::Const::OK may be more consistent but seems like quite a lot to type. so, I think I'm ok with just keeping Apache2::OK over making it longer, but I don't feel strongly about it. ? --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
