Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 à 14:57, Alexis Sukrieh a écrit :

On 4 Jan 2013 13:21, "Damien Krotkine" <dkrotkine@gmail.com> wrote:

And that brings up the fact that we should use a serious tool to handle dancer 'use' options. Can we try an enhanced sub::exporter or similar?

I doubt this is an exporter issue actually, but rather an object-encapsulation problem, so I'm not sure opening a new work area about Sub::Exporter is what we want. On top of introducing another core-dep, we're going to diverge, I fear. I may be wrong, but that's my feeling.

Sorry I answered the other message before seeing this one.

Yes I agree it's a different topic. I was just thinking out loud. What mean is that if we need to handle :

use Dancer;

use Dancer qw(:moose);

use Dancer qw( :syntax :test);

Use Dancer dsl => 'My::DSL', scope => 'Parent', ':moose'

then maybe we can rely on existing mechanism. Maybe not a new dependency, but at least get inspired and maybe steal the syntax of existing stuff

The exporting of symbols done by the DSL role works pretty well, not sure we want to spend energy on changing something that works.

Yes definitely, see my other email

The main deal here is to be able to tell Dancer to compose a set of packages into one Dancer::Core::App object, for the caller. Or if we do it like you say, from a sub-app to a parent app. And after thinking about it, I don't think both ways are exclusive.

That's true actually, we could do both. Now the hard thing is to find the right syntax :)

Once we have that, we should be in a very good position for implementing the option David is speaking about:

scope: single # the D1 way

Or

scope: per_app # the current D2 way

maybe per_package ?

Of course, there may be better names but you get the idea. I think we have something there, combining all the comments in this thread.

Fully agree. Productive thread :)

_______________________________________________
dancer-users mailing list
dancer-users@dancer.pm
http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users