> pulling it into the core with a name like POE::Arguments side note: my vote would go for POE::Args. one thing I've always liked about perl and detested about Java is the length of namespaces. I for one hate to type so shorter names are better!
- e p.s. don't I remember that there had been some discussion about creating a PoCo in place of POE::Component? -----Original Message----- From: Rocco Caputo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: sungo Subject: Re: POE::Sweeten::Args On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:54:02PM -0500, sungo wrote: > > so the question is: newbies seem to not understand $_[KERNEL] and > friends. what to do about it? > > my answer is this: POE::Sweeten::Args, written by Casey West, > specifically to alleviate this problem. Let's document it in the core > (Don't like this argument style? POE::Sweeten::Args offers two other > varieties.). If it really becomes must, lets talk to casey about > pulling it into the core with a name like POE::Arguments. > > basically, i think this is a solved problem and we just need to add more > docs about the possibilities. the key here is to add more possibilities > not remove old ones. I agree that the documentation should point to POE::Sugar::Args, POE::Session::MessageBased, and whatever @_ alternatives are out there. If it goes into the core, though, we're stuck with it forever. We should make sure it's a good and lasting solution. Another idea to throw into the mix: While documenting different calling conventions, it might be good to describe how to subclass or replace POE::Session. POE::Session's generic interface would get documented, and the interaction between POE::Kernel and POE::Session outlined. The perldoc for POE::Loop has the sort of documentation I'm thinking of here. -- Rocco Caputo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://poe.perl.org/
