[PBP-pm] Inside-out state of the art
andrew at sweger.net
Wed May 17 10:39:52 PDT 2006
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Darke, Clive wrote:
> If these modules give you what you need, then no. If they don't - then what
> do you need?
I have inherited a large web application (Apache/mod_perl/MySQL) that
tried to be a M-V-C and got confused along the way (toss M, V, & C into a
food processor and pulse several times). I'd like to scaffold in a new
Model with a tighter abstraction layer that doesn't let the V & C torpedo
the database. So, I'm scoping out Inside-Out objects as a possible object
shell. I have not been keeping up with development in this area and
thought this would be a good place to ask.
> I don't use Object::InsideOut personally because inside-out
> objects are simple to implement. Some aspects of Class::Std can save time,
> but even then it is often not needed.
Simple, yes. But I'd like to either throw solid, well tested wheels under
my cart or at least have a good set of blueprints to crib from.
> You might like to look at Moose as Yet Another Way to Do It.
Wow. I hadn't seen that one yet. Looks interesting, but it may be too
young and volitile for my purposes. Definitely something for the tinkering
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Adrian Howard wrote:
> I'd not look at Class:Std myself if all you are interested in is
> inside-out objects - not thread safe and rather slow last time I
> looked. Of course there is other stuff in Class::Std that you might
> find interesting...
> Object::InsideOut if you want bells and whistles
> Class::InsideOut if you want something minimal
Thanks, Adrian. These look like good starting points and at least give me
plenty to read.
Andrew B. Sweger -- The great thing about multitasking is that several
things can go wrong at once.
More information about the PBP-pm