On 02/28/2013 03:26 PM, Mike Doherty wrote: > On 13-02-28 09:07 AM, Yanick Champoux wrote: >> On 13-02-27 11:04 AM, Mark Stosberg wrote: >>> Perhaps if some of these get converted to extend-by-roles instead of >>> extend-by-inheritance, some others will follow along, and we'll end up >>> with a more useful of collection of Perl-based browser extensions. >> >> I don't have a lot to add to the conversation at the moment, but I >> just wanted to '++' the idea > > Same here. I've had two separate projects at university that both would > have been easier had the LWP stuff been done as roles. As it seems > everyone thinks this is probably a good idea, the real question becomes > "Who is going to do the work?" -- as usual :)
One of the nice parts about this, is that it can be backwards compatible. For example, if we wanted to make this change in WWW::Mechanize, we could make WWW::Mechanize::Role, and move (hopefully) all the functionality in there, and then WWW::Mechanize would like this: package WWW::Mechanize; use Moo; extends 'LWP::UserAgent'; with 'WWW::Mechanize::Role'; 1; I mocked this up with Moo, as it's both Moose-compatible, and a lighter dependency. Any other Moose-compatibile role option seems like it would be a fine choice. People could go on using WWW::Mechanize as they have been, but now there's a new option to use it a role in a complex user agent if desired. Mark
