Though doing it this way requires the user to maintain a manifest or some sort of class loading system, does it not?

Cheers,
Rik

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

An other way is to think about it bottom up instead of top down

Instead of the parent app including the children packages, we could do :

package App::Foo;
use Dancer scope => qw(App);

It's a bit like in relational database where you say who your parent is, not who your children are. 

It Also avoids to change the parent package every time you add a child. 

Also it makes it possible to use dancer with more than one scope. Not why it would useful though :)

We should probably look at breadboard and catalyst, see how they do it. David, I think you have experience with catalyst?

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?

Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 à 13:57, David Precious a écrit :

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:28:43 +0100
Alexis Sukrieh <sukria@sukria.net> wrote:
I think the user should be able to say : these apps (packages) share
the same registry, or in other words, these are supposed to be merged
into one app.

For instance:

package App;
use Dancer;
use App::Foo;
use App::Bar;

In this example, everything in Foo and Bar are in a jail, they don't
share hooks or engines. We need a way to tell Dancer to load multiple
apps as one, I'm not sure exactly how the DSL should be extended to
allow that, but here is the idea I have in mind:

package App;
use Dancer;
consume 'App::Foo', 'App::Bar';

That new "consume" keyword would be responsible for loading
everything that is defined in the packages _into_ the current
package. That would be, I think, the most generic and proper way to
share settings, hooks and everything between "apps".

Hmm, I like that; the sounds like it could be a good solution to the
problem.

I definitely think it should be possible to load routes etc from
different packages but have them share a scope for config / hooks etc.

At $work, we have a very large Dancer app, with routes defined in
various packages (grouped logically); however, we have before hooks
which should run for all routes, and session engine / serializer etc
settings which apply to all; we'd need to be able to do the same with D2
one way or another.

Part of me wonders if the auto scope-per-package stuff should be
configurable, so you could request D1-style "all in one" behaviour if
desired, but I'm not sure.


--
David Precious ("bigpresh") <davidp@preshweb.co.uk>


_______________________________________________
dancer-users mailing list


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