in reply to Re^5: Beyond Inside-Out
in thread Beyond Inside-Out

Methods imported as plug-ins would have to go through a well-defined interface, like a set of pre-appointed methods, to work with any class. That would continue to work with Alter-based classes. By name and purpose, a "plug-in" can't make assumptions about the makeup of the objects it will work with. I don't see a problem.

The remark you quoted, "...the Alter-approach assumes that methods are compiled in the class their name resides in" concerns only code that accesses the object data directly. An imported method won't do that.

Anno

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Beyond Inside-Out
by xdg (Monsignor) on May 30, 2007 at 14:46 UTC
    By name and purpose, a "plug-in" can't make assumptions about the makeup of the objects it will work with.

    See, for example, CGI::Application and how its plugins work. It's just Exporter bringing in things as requested.

    There's no reason that plugins couldn't be written to work with Alter in some way, but many existing plugins violate the assumption you stated.

    -xdg

    Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

      I think I must be missing something. I can't see what the problem is.

      Surely, the only thing that matters is that the property that method X deals with, is protected against being overwritten by any other method? As long as all other methods that want to access that property do so through the defined interface, rather than trying to access it directly, it shouldn't be a problem.

      Am I missing something?

      thanks

      clint

        The defined interface decides which property to access based on the caller() function. Importing a method into a namespace (e.g. via Exporter) only creates an alias to the original, so any functions called from the method see the original namespace as the result of caller().

        Example: $obj is of class MyClass. Depending on whether ego() is called from a native subroutine of MyClass (bar)or an imported subroutine from Plugin (foo), ego() finds a different calling package -- and thus returns a different storage hash. In the example below, foo() and bar both serve as accessors to the name field -- but they store/access different underlying hashes for the same object.

        use strict; use warnings; no warnings qw/once/; package Alter; my %data; sub ego { return( $data{scalar caller(0)} ||= {} ); } package Plugin; sub foo { $_[0]->ego()->{name} = $_[1] if @_ > 1; return $_[0]->ego()->{name}; } package MyClass; *ego = \&Alter::ego; *foo = \&Plugin::foo; sub bar { $_[0]->ego()->{name} = $_[1] if @_ > 1; return $_[0]->ego()->{name}; } package main; my $obj = bless( \my $scalar, "MyClass" ); $obj->bar( "Larry" ); $obj->foo( "Damian" ); for my $m ( qw/bar foo/ ) { print "$m: ", $obj->$m, "\n"; }

        Prints:

        bar: Larry foo: Damian

        This would be reasonable behavior if MyClass was a subclass of Plugin and both classes defined a name field, but that isn't what's happening here.

        -xdg

        Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

      See, for example, CGI::Application and how its plugins work

      I will, thanks. It's on Alter's to-do list.

      Anno