Inheritance within Apache::Registry(NG)

[Philip Molter <ph...@datafoundry.net>]

I want to write a handler that will basically do a bunch of
processing, create some information, and then run a script in the
handled directory passing in the information, afterwords, doing
some more work before finally returning.  So, like:

  sub handler {
    my $r = shift;

    # bunches of processing
    $r = __PACKAGE__->new( $r );
    # $r now is of our class, but inherits Apache.pm's methods

    my $rc = Apache::RegistryNG( $r, ... #other info );
    
    # more processing
    return $rc;
  }

However, whenever I pass $r, it invariably gets recreated as an
Apache object or, if I fiddle around with Apache::PerlRun, it gets
maybe recreated as an Apache::RegistryNG object, depending on how
I make PerlRun inherit things.  The point is, I /want/ Registry or
RegistryNG to manage the compilation and management of my script
code, but the $r I pass in I want to be an Apache object with
several extended and overridden methods of my design.

Is this feasible at all?  The sorts of things that RegistryNG and
PerlRun do to their request objects sort of destroys any sort of
inheritance that you setup.  Is it better off just to incorporate
the compilation code into a new module, rather than using what's
already there?

* Philip Molter
* DataFoundry.net
* http://www.datafoundry.net/
* philip@datafoundry.net

Re: Inheritance within Apache::Registry(NG)

[Ken Williams <ke...@forum.swarthmore.edu>]

philip@datafoundry.net (Philip Molter) wrote:
>However, whenever I pass $r, it invariably gets recreated as an
>Apache object or, if I fiddle around with Apache::PerlRun, it gets
>maybe recreated as an Apache::RegistryNG object, depending on how
>I make PerlRun inherit things.  The point is, I /want/ Registry or
>RegistryNG to manage the compilation and management of my script
>code, but the $r I pass in I want to be an Apache object with
>several extended and overridden methods of my design.
>
>Is this feasible at all?  The sorts of things that RegistryNG and
>PerlRun do to their request objects sort of destroys any sort of
>inheritance that you setup.  Is it better off just to incorporate
>the compilation code into a new module, rather than using what's
>already there?

I've got the same gripe.  I don't think RegistryNG should be a subclass
of Apache, and I don't think it should have to make so many changes to
the request object.  I've submitted patches to RegistryNG to Doug, but he
hasn't had time to look at them yet.

My changed versions are at
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/~ken/modules/Apache-Filter/lib/Apache/
if you're interested in seeing what I've done.


  -------------------                            -------------------
  Ken Williams                             Last Bastion of Euclidity
  ken@forum.swarthmore.edu                            The Math Forum