[PBP-pm] Inside-out state of the art

Andrew Sweger 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
kit.

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 mailing list