No unless. Method calling is fully dynamic, you don't have to hardcode the package anywhere. If you want to get abusive about it you can even do something like this: 
my $pack = "Foo";
my $meth = "new";
my $obj = $pack->$meth(); # Calls method new in class Foo

[download]
So you can pass the buck to the client code, knowing that if they need to be dynamic, they still can, but it will still be simpler in the common case, and the base class will not need maintainance as you add child classes.

UPDATE
I think there is more than just a preference here. If you choose to pass the subpackage in as a string, the parent class has to do a lot more. For one thing I would now demand that it loads the child class. Which means that either the parent has to hardcode all of its children (maintainance issues anyone?), or you have to write dynamic loading logic. You have also just arbitrarily limited the naming and location of your child classes. In many cases this may be innocuous. But I don't like putting any restrictions on how things must be done unless I see very specific benefits to doing it.

Therefore I don't see the different structure as being a benefit in any way, shape, or form.

However it bears costs. You have to write more code for the feature. That is more code to write, debug, test, and be aware of. You now have objects that are not blessed into the class which people would expect them to be blessed into. It is now harder to subclass an arbitrary part of your hierarchy. Someone who wants to understand your code now has to do extra work to figure out your data structure.

This is not to say that you might not from time to time want to have dynamic loading of specific subclasses. DBI's proxying off of appropriate DBD::* classes is an excellent case in point. However such cases are somewhat exceptional. And furthermore if ever I have the choice between a minor aesthetic issue and managing to write the most naturally straightforward code possible which achieves the goal, I retrain my aesthetics! Unnecessary complications are a bad idea in my books.

In reply to Re (tilly) 3: Loading a different Module depending on the Configuration by tilly
in thread Loading a different Module depending on the Configuration by skazat

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.