Re: Should URL be split up? (was Re: Perl 5 Classes for the Web (CGI
Tim Bunce (Tim.Bunce@ig.co.uk)
Thu, 16 Mar 1995 13:18:34 +0000
In article <9503160131.aa20696@q2.ics.uci.edu> you write:
>
> [...]
>
> I was wondering if not some compromise is possible.
>
> Grahams classes do both URL's and transport. However, you might want
> to use URL without the transport (say when proxying). So what about
> splitting the two, and restructuring the URL class into an
> auto-loading/auto-registering set of classes. They can all inherit a
> generic parser, but it would allow easier additions, and mean entries
> %URL::DefPort, %URL::InSet could be put in their specific classes.
>
> By keeping it separate from the transport, we can tackle those issues
> separately; instead of isA replationships with URL schemes they become
> uses relationships.
>
> Comments?
>
I think this is the best approach and is the basis for a summary I'm
working on.
Reducing the coupling between URL's role as an addressing mechanism and
it's specification/implication of a transport mechanism will lead to
a better design and implementation IMHO.
... off to read all the specs and email again ...
>-- Martijn
>
Regards,
Tim Bunce.
p.s. Martijn, could you send me your latest URL.pm asap ?