Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1162Re: [soaplite] SOAP::Lite architecture

Expand Messages
  • Paul Kulchenko
    Jan 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Sam!

      --- Sam Tregar <sam@...> wrote:
      > smaller chunks. I can see that this is more of judgment call than
      > anything else...
      I agree.

      > > we can save about 300 lines for client and server, approx 10%.
      > This could be a significant saving - maybe 1MB or more depending on
      > what's actually in those lines.
      Hardly that much, but I'll do some tests to find exact number.

      > It's definitely more convenient. However, considering that you
      > don't
      > "own" the SOAP:: namespace, it's not very polite to create modules
      > there
      > without registering them. If someone else wants to write a SOAP
      > tracing
      > package they have to know that SOAP::Lite has claimed SOAP::Trace
      > already ,
      > for example. The more popular the SOAP protocol gets the more
      > likely this sort of problem is to occur.
      There are two different problems. Every module uses at least one
      namespace, and SOAP::Lite uses about ten of them. Since most of them
      are packaged in one file, it's not easy to find that namespace is
      already taken. Later is easy to address. POD file for every module
      can be created, so it'll be visible for CPAN searches. In addition to
      that, I would expect that SOAP developer that decides to create
      implementation in Perl will be quite familiar with other
      implementations and won't be taken by a surprise.

      First problem is more difficult. Why HTTP::Daemon namespace was used?
      Why not HTTP::LWP::Daemon or LWP::HTTP::Daemon? There are several
      reasons. What if another HTTP-based daemon will be written (in fact
      we have several. One of them is Net::Daemon? Will it create any
      problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. Was Gisle Aas impolite with taking
      HTTP::Daemon namespace? hardly. How about XML::Parser? Can't imagine
      there will be only one.

      You can't easily create several implementations behind one interface
      (unless this interface is already well established, like XML::SAX).
      It's (IMHO) reasonable to expect that there will be several competing
      implementations and some of them will use "better" namespaces. There
      is no "best practices" on thi topic, but I'd like to know different
      opinions, so next time I'll do it right.

      > I don't understand what you mean by this. I've written modules
      > that use multiple namespaces and are separated into multiple files.
      I just meant that if you have:

      -- Foo.pm
      package Foo;

      package Bar;

      you'll be able to do 'use Foo', but not 'use Bar' without doing
      tricks with %INC.

      Best wishes, Paul.

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic