Re^3: Best practices passing database handles, cgi objects, etc.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Best practices passing database handles, cgi objects, etc. by Anonymous Monk on Feb 18, 2014 at 13:52 UTC
I fail to see how your OO approach is any better; all it does is wrap some global variables inside a class. That is how its better, its called encapsulation You can have $foo and $bar both be of type Classname, with both being able to ->dance and ->sign Its better in the same way subroutines are better than not subroutines ( goto ) Its also why `Main(@ARGV); sub Main { }` is better than `MAIN: { }` because you can only `goto MAIN` , its a label, its not a subroutine, you can't call it Its better in that its : testable/mockable, reusable, not fragile Action at a distance (computer programming) http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/148108/why-is-global-state-so-evil You cannot have more than one instance of global state -- its global Also, it's silly to store multiple blogs (with identical schemas, I presume?) across multiple databases. So is everything you wrote :)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Best practices passing database handles, cgi objects, etc. by tobyink (Canon) on Feb 18, 2014 at 13:40 UTC
Because classes can have multiple instances. (And the blogs may be operated by different people and organizations and be installed on entirely different servers. There may be slight variations in the schemas because of different versions of the blog engine being installed.) `use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name`	[reply]