On 10/22/05, Peter Speltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/21/05, David Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How about renaming setup() as setup_model(). The new setup() would
> > then just call setup_model(). So setup() becomes the official hook for
> > plugin initialisation, and setup_model() for model initialisation.
> > Then you can override setup_model() to do things your way.
> >
>
> So you would just override various hooks called in setup and never
> need to override setup unless you were doing something very out of the
> norm? I like the sound of that.
>
Yes. In fact setup() would just be
sub setup
{
my $class = shift;
$class->setup_model(@_);
}
We could maybe break setup_model() into a couple of sub-hooks, but I
think anyone who needs to override setup_model() should understand the
framework well enough to know what bits to replicate and what bits to
modify in their own setup_model().
d.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Maypole-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maypole-devel
