Hello,

2013/1/3 Damien Krotkine <dkrotkine@gmail.com>

We should accept that developers have the right to separate features by packages, and not oblige them to group routes and hooks per package.

Indeed, and I'd go even a step further:

Celogeek mentioned that this can be worked around by using roles but not everybody ate fluent with them.

So, I propose that one could specify the scope of a hook.

By default a hook would be package-scoped. But we should make it possible to scope it to the whole application ( if that's possible), and also be able to scope it to a selection of routes, as David Golden mentioned.

Maybe it's not the right solution, but at least you'll agree that there is an issue in the current state ( I think English speaking people say "red herring" :)

You're absolutely right Damien, thanks to users like Celogeek who spend some time migrating a real application for 1 to 2, we've realized that the scoping we have in 2 is great, but is not _always_ what the user wants.

I also think the "package scoping by default" is a good idea but it's clear now that we need a way to disable that in some places.

I don't think it should be an exception for hooks, or even a kind of hooks. 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".