Mark Hedges wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Mark Hedges wrote:
Regarding your comment about inheritance vs. references -
something I hadn't thought much about. A) I need to prefix
all my internal method names with 'a2c_' to stay out of
the controller namespace. B) You can't have any controller
subroutines with the same names as anything in the
Apache2::Request* family, which (slightly) limits your
choice of allowable URL's. But I think it's worth it so
that '$self' is the Apache object. What do people think?
Talking to myself again. I think I can make it work either
way. Apache2::Controller won't use Apache2::Request as a
base, but it will still instantiate the Apache2::Request
object and put it in $self->{r}. Then if you want to use
Apache2::Request as a base in your controller module to
access those methods via $self, you can. Otherwise, don't.
For a compromise between them you could also do the 'fake delegate'
where your AUTOLOAD subroutine checks if $self->{r}->can(($AUTOLOAD =~
/::(.+?)$/)[0]) returns a CODE ref and delegates the call to that routine.
The downside is that you're overlapping namespaces, as you mentioned
before, which has its own complications.
I think you're right, its better to be explicit about choosing the
request object when you want to do a request object method. That works
find unless you're replicating some sort of interface where the methods
you need directly callable are in two diff subclasses and inheritance
doesn't do what you want and explicit delegation (wrapper methods) is
too much of a PITA.
I would make myself a little method
sub r { shift->{'r'} };
just so I could write
$self->r->...
instead of having to do the hash dereference. Of course, you can
program that sort of thing in AUTOLOAD too. ;)
David
