Thanks Paul for raising this. > I'd like to have more informations. For example: > * arguments in favor of Moo ?
Taking a look at Moo, its main advantages are speed and compatibility with Moose. https://metacpan.org/pod/Moo#MOO-AND-MOOSE > is the argument "the overhead is cancelled by Plack persistency" valid & is > it removing this argument in favor of Moo ? Don't forget that overall run-time performance of Koha is generally not limited by the object system, but by external IO, design decisions etc., AND persistency for a webapp. For the sitemap command-line script, I've compared execution time between Moose/Moo versions, and found: Moose ---------------- real 0m5.277s user 0m5.136s sys 0m0.096s Moo ---------------- real 0m4.705s user 0m4.540s sys 0m0.096s Moo is quicker but not that much in this case. > I'd like to have more details about "too many important features are lost" > with Moo ? Out of my brain, missing Moose features in Moo: - 'isa' parameter to attributes, and a complete type system. - Method modifiers, but is seems it's now somehow implemented in Moo. - Delegation - MooseX:: An extensive ecosystem of Moose extensions. - Class::MOP. A Meta Object Protocol. It allows to do classes introspection for example, or classes loading during runtime. _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
