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

Re: [soaplite] SOAP::Lite architecture

Expand Messages
  • Sam Tregar
    ... Sounds good to me. ... Ok, I guess this works out to an esthetic judgment then. I had an opposite reaction while working my way through the SOAP::Lite
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Paul Kulchenko wrote:

      > Both points are valid. First of all, there WILL be redesign, but not
      > VERY soon and I will ask for your suggestions re new design.

      Sounds good to me.

      > Psychological aspect. I started my module when SOAP.pm already
      > existed and if you take a look into its distribution you'll find
      > there SOAP.pm, sixteen (!) files in SOAP directory and 4 files for
      > HTTP transport. I just got lost jumping between all of them and when
      > I started my module I decided that it will NOT be like this.

      Ok, I guess this works out to an esthetic judgment then. I had an
      opposite reaction while working my way through the SOAP::Lite source - I
      wished it was more compartmentalized so that I could read through it in
      smaller chunks. I can see that this is more of judgment call than
      anything else...

      > 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.

      > No particular reason. I thought it's not convenient to write
      > SOAP::Lite::Data, SOAP::Lite::Serializer, SOAP::Lite::Parser, and so
      > on, and if you don't do it for some module, it doesn't make much
      > sense to do it for others. Even considering this I was very careful
      > to not interfere with modules from SOAP module (Keith Brown,
      > DevelopMentor), the only SOAP module for Perl available at that time
      > and I'm pretty sure even now you can use them in one script (though I
      > didn't try it with last versions).

      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.

      Unfortunately I think this would be a hard problem to fix - SOAP::Lite
      exposes a number of SOAP:: namespaces through its interface (SOAP::Data
      for example).

      > One more reason why it's better to keep modules in separate files, is
      > that you can use 'use/require' in this case. It can't be easily done
      > when modules are packaged in one file.

      I don't understand what you mean by this. I've written modules that use
      multiple namespaces and are separated into multiple files. Typically the
      user does:

      use Foo;

      And then in Foo.pm you have:

      package Foo;
      use Foo::Required;

      And later, when Foo::Optional is needed:

      require Foo::Optional; import Foo::Optional;

      Is there a problem here that I don't know about?

      -sam
    • Paul Kulchenko
      Hi, Sam! ... I agree. ... Hardly that much, but I ll do some tests to find exact number. ... There are two different problems. Every module uses at least one
      Message 2 of 9 , 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!
        http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
      • Sam Tregar
        ... I ll stick my neck out - I think this one was a bad choice. It probably should have been XML::Parser::Expat or just XML::Expat. But, hey, it s Larry
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 20, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Paul Kulchenko wrote:

          > How about XML::Parser? Can't imagine there will be only one.

          I'll stick my neck out - I think this one was a bad choice. It probably
          should have been XML::Parser::Expat or just XML::Expat. But, hey, it's
          Larry Wall, who's going to argue? ;)

          > 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 strongly disagree. There is a well documented "best practice" - write
          to modules@... and register your namespaces with them. I suspect
          you could have avoided squatting on SOAP:: if you'd gotten their input
          when you started the module!

          > 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.

          Ah, right. Yes, this is a small problem but it's not a big deal when you
          consider that users shouldn't usually be loading sub-modules directly.

          -sam
        • Paul Kulchenko
          Hi, Sam! ... Actually that s precisely what I did (you can find my message in the archive). And I carefully checked archives on that and related topics. In
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 21, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Sam!

            --- Sam Tregar <sam@...> wrote:
            > I strongly disagree. There is a well documented "best practice" -
            > write
            > to modules@... and register your namespaces with them. I
            > suspect
            > you could have avoided squatting on SOAP:: if you'd gotten their
            > input when you started the module!
            Actually that's precisely what I did (you can find my message in the
            archive). And I carefully checked archives on that and related
            topics. In most cases you register MAIN namespace for your module,
            but I never heard about registering internal modules and any
            recommendations as for namespaces they should use.

            Best wishes, Paul.

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
            http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
          • Sam Tregar
            ... What is the point of registering a namespace if you don t register all that you intend to use? As I understand it, the point behind registering namespaces
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 21, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Paul Kulchenko wrote:

              > Actually that's precisely what I did (you can find my message in the
              > archive). And I carefully checked archives on that and related
              > topics. In most cases you register MAIN namespace for your module,
              > but I never heard about registering internal modules and any
              > recommendations as for namespaces they should use.

              What is the point of registering a namespace if you don't register all
              that you intend to use? As I understand it, the point behind registering
              namespaces is so that people will know that you "own" that name. Now,
              most modules can get away with just registering the base name since they
              keep their private modules below their base - i.e. registering Foo::Bar
              and then including Foo::Bar::Baz and Foo::Bar::Bif. However, the same
              does not apply to registering Foo::Bar and then including Foo::Baz and
              Foo::Bif in your distribution.

              But I think you understand what I'm saying - I don't mean to beat you over
              the head with it. What's done is done, right?

              -sam
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.