1162Re: [soaplite] SOAP::Lite architecture
- Jan 20, 2002Hi, Sam!
--- Sam Tregar <sam@...> wrote:
> smaller chunks. I can see that this is more of judgment call thanI agree.
> anything else...
> > we can save about 300 lines for client and server, approx 10%.Hardly that much, but I'll do some tests to find exact number.
> This could be a significant saving - maybe 1MB or more depending on
> what's actually in those lines.
> It's definitely more convenient. However, considering that youThere are two different problems. Every module uses at least one
> "own" the SOAP:: namespace, it's not very polite to create modules
> without registering them. If someone else wants to write a SOAP
> 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.
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 modulesI just meant that if you have:
> that use multiple namespaces and are separated into multiple files.
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!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>