[dancer-users] Re : Re : Before Hook hit multiple times.

[Rik Brown]

Though doing it this way requires the user to maintain a manifest or some
sort of class loading system, does it not?

Cheers,
Rik
On 4 Jan 2013 13:21, "Damien Krotkine" <dkrotkine at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Sorry, top posting...
>
> An other way is to think about it bottom up instead of top down
>
> Instead of the parent app including the children packages, we could do :
>
> package App::Foo;
> use Dancer scope => qw(App);
>
> It's a bit like in relational database where you say who your parent is,
> not who your children are.
>
> It Also avoids to change the parent package every time you add a child.
>
> Also it makes it possible to use dancer with more than one scope. Not why
> it would useful though :)
>
> We should probably look at breadboard and catalyst, see how they do it.
> David, I think you have experience with catalyst?
>
> And that brings up the fact that we should use a serious tool to handle
> dancer 'use' options. Can we try an enhanced sub::exporter or similar?
>
> Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 à 13:57, David Precious a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:28:43 +0100
> Alexis Sukrieh <sukria at sukria.net> wrote:
>
> I think the user should be able to say : these apps (packages) share
> the same registry, or in other words, these are supposed to be merged
> into one app.
>
> For instance:
>
> package App;
> use Dancer;
> use App::Foo;
> use App::Bar;
>
> In this example, everything in Foo and Bar are in a jail, they don't
> share hooks or engines. We need a way to tell Dancer to load multiple
> apps as one, I'm not sure exactly how the DSL should be extended to
> allow that, but here is the idea I have in mind:
>
> package App;
> use Dancer;
> consume 'App::Foo', 'App::Bar';
>
> That new "consume" keyword would be responsible for loading
> everything that is defined in the packages _into_ the current
> package. That would be, I think, the most generic and proper way to
> share settings, hooks and everything between "apps".
>
>
> Hmm, I like that; the sounds like it could be a good solution to the
> problem.
>
> I definitely think it should be possible to load routes etc from
> different packages but have them share a scope for config / hooks etc.
>
> At $work, we have a very large Dancer app, with routes defined in
> various packages (grouped logically); however, we have before hooks
> which should run for all routes, and session engine / serializer etc
> settings which apply to all; we'd need to be able to do the same with D2
> one way or another.
>
> Part of me wonders if the auto scope-per-package stuff should be
> configurable, so you could request D1-style "all in one" behaviour if
> desired, but I'm not sure.
>
>
> --
> David Precious ("bigpresh") <davidp at preshweb.co.uk>
> http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter
> www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook
> www.preshweb.co.uk/cpan www.preshweb.co.uk/github
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dancer-users mailing list
> dancer-users at dancer.pm
> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dancer-users mailing list
> dancer-users at dancer.pm
> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/pipermail/dancer-users/attachments/20130104/03b24488/attachment.htm>