On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:11:04AM -0700, Karen Etheridge wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:28:35PM -0500, Jesse Luehrs wrote: > > Nope... you can't magically turn a class (even a non-Moose class) into a > > role... roles just don't work like that. Sticking with extends is really > > your only option for dealing with non-Moose code. > > I see a few options: > > 1. copy your framework code into a Moose role (i.e. "refactor") > 2. import the functions from the framework into a Moose role, using > Exporter. > 3. create a Moose role which has one attribute, an object handle which is > an instantiation of your framework, and use delegations (i.e. the 'handles' > option) to tie methods from the role into the framework class.
2 won't work, because Moose treats exports different from methods (this is why you can do "use Scalar::Util 'reftype'" in two different roles and not get a method conflict). And I assumed that if 1 was reasonable, we wouldn't really even be having this discussion(: But it's true, delegation would be another potential option. -doy
