On Dec 29, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Rob Kinyon wrote:
I initially thought of this as well, but thinking through it further leads to some questions: 1) Are you really going to have such re-usable components?
sometimes.
2) If you do, why aren't they in some sort of child class that you can specify?
True, and a better solution. This of course means that I need to be able to allow for subclasses in the config file then as well (which is a good thing).
3) If you cannot put them in some child class, then all you have is a junk drawer of items that are used in one place in some config file that need unique names. That's a real smell to me ...
*sniff*,... *sniff*,... yeah I think smell something too.
I agree, Junk drawer modules are bad.
Hmmmm.
I think I am going to look at Config::ApacheFormat and see if I can't hack in multi-line support. That will answer my questions in the end anyway.
Steve
Rob
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:36:08 -0500, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 28, 2004, at 8:47 PM, Terrence Brannon wrote:I think so. But why not name your subrefs and put them in a module and
refer to them in a single clean line of config code?
Hmmmm, Thats a good thought.
Steve
_______________________________________________ sw-design mailing list [email protected] http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sw-design
_______________________________________________ sw-design mailing list [email protected] http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sw-design
_______________________________________________ sw-design mailing list [email protected] http://metaperl.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sw-design
