Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I don't mind to having to include the stuff that foo.t needs in foo.conf.in, as long as the two are co-located. The part to which I object is having the config stuff either in a separate directory, or having to manually mung an existing file (e.g., extras.conf.in) for it. I want a drop-in ability: put the file(s) somewhere, run Makefile.PL and -clean again, and bingo.
That being said, I even more like the idea of having a CONFIGURE method actually *in* foo.t. The fewer files are involved, the less likely things are to get out of synch. But if foo.t isn't a package/module, I'll have to leave it to you experts to figure out how to make it happen, since 'foo->CONFIGURE' isn't (directly) an option. Though elegant.
My last suggestion was to have a single file with test and config inside. The problem is scanning many files, which I suggested to solve by having a special naming (e.g. .ct instead of .t) to mark certain files that they include extra configuration. I've explained the caveat of such an approach in my prev reply.
_____________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
