Re: Re: RFC - Parameter Objects

Each in its own class? Aack! Why didn't I see that bug coming? If more than one parameter object is used, identically named parameters would conflict. To get around this, the simplest thing that could possibly work could be for me to just auto-increment the class name of the parameter object. However, building this on top of Class::Object does look like a nice way to go. However, I might have a problem with the resulting object already having new() and sub() methods.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.
Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)

Comment on Re: Re: RFC - Parameter Objects

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: RFC - Parameter Objects by fruiture (Curate) on May 14, 2003 at 18:50 UTC
Yep, a counter is also Class::Object's method to create unique classnames. As for the new() and sub() methods: I don't think they'd conflict with the purpose of the parameter object, even more they are very usefull for introducing hossman's validation methods (why limit this to one isValid, why not isValidForPurposeA and isValidForPurposeB ...) and to derive objects from objects. To me, it's just fulfillment of concept ;) -- http://fruiture.de	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: RFC - Parameter Objects
by fruiture (Curate) on May 14, 2003 at 18:50 UTC

Yep, a counter is also Class::Object's method to create unique classnames. As for the new() and sub() methods: I don't think they'd conflict with the purpose of the parameter object, even more they are very usefull for introducing hossman's validation methods (why limit this to one isValid, why not isValidForPurposeA and isValidForPurposeB ...) and to derive objects from objects. To me, it's just fulfillment of concept ;)

fruiture

[reply]