On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Jonathan Swartz wrote:
The problem is that there are now legitimate reasons to "wrap"
these methods at the CHI/Driver.pm superclass level (meaning, do
something before and/or after the method). For example, I want to
add an optional generic size-awareness feature (the cache can keep
track of its own size), which means that we have to adjust size
whenever remove() and clear() are called. And I want to log
remove() calls the way we currently log get() and set().
So one solution is to define remove() and clear() in CHI/Driver.pm,
and have them call _remove() and _clear() in the driver
subclasses. But this kind of change makes me uneasy for several
reasons:
You want to use augment/inner, I think.
See http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Moose-0.68/lib/Moose/Cookbook/Basics/Recipe6.pod
and http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Moose-0.68/lib/Moose/Manual/MethodModifiers.pod#INNER_AND_AUGMENT
That provides an alternative to _remove() and _clear() - a little
cleaner, a little more verbose. But it still mandates a driver API
change, and it still requires us to tell drivers to define certain
methods differently because we currently need them wrapped. If we want
to wrap more methods later, the API has to change again. That's what
I'm trying to avoid.
Jon
