Is it possible to replace a method of a Moose object at runtime ?
By looking at the source code of Class::MOP::Method (which Moose::Meta::Method inherits from) I concluded that by doing
$method->{body} = sub{ my stuff }
I would be able to replace at runtime a method of an object.
I can get the method using
$object->meta->find_method_by_name(<method_name>);
However, this didn't quite work out.
Is it conceivable to modify methods at run time? And, what is the way to do it with Moose?
Moose or not, that does not sound like a good idea.
Instead, design your object to have an accessor for the method. For example, users of your class can use My::Frobnicator->frobnicator->() to get and invoke the frobnicator method and use My::Frobnicator->frobnicator(sub { } ) to set it.
Sinan's idea is a great start.
But with an little extra tweak, you can make using your method accessor just like using a normal method.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Carp;
my $f = Frob->new;
$f->frob(
sub {
my $self = shift;
print "$self was frobbed\n";
print Carp::longmess('frob')
}
);
print "\nCall frob as normal sub\n";
$f->frobit;
print "\nGoto frob\n";
$f->goto_frob;
BEGIN {
package Frob;
use Moose;
has 'frob' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'CodeRef',
);
sub frobit {
&{$_[0]->frob};
}
sub goto_frob {
goto $_[0]->frob;
}
}
The two methods in Frob are very similar.
frobit passes all arguments, including the invocant to the code ref.
goto_frob passes all arguments, including the invocant to the code ref, and replaces goto_frob's stack frame with the code refs.
Which to use depends on what you want in the stack.
Regarding munging the body storage of a Class::MOP::Method object, like so $method->{body} = sub { 'foo' }:
It's never a good idea to violate encapsulation when you are doing OOP. Especially not when you are working with complex object systems like Moose and Class::MOP. It's asking for trouble. Sometimes, there is no other way to get what you want, but even then, violating encapsulation is still a bad idea.
Using the previously mentioned MooseX::SingletonMethod you can replace an objects method.
For example:
{
package Foo;
use MooseX::SingletonMethod;
sub foo { say 'bar' };
}
my $bar = Foo->new;
my $baz = Foo->new;
# replace foo method just in $baz object
$baz->add_singleton_method( foo => sub { say 'baz' } );
$bar->foo; # => bar
$baz->foo; # => baz
Also see this SO answer to What should I do with an object that should no longer be used in Perl?, which shows how this can be achieved using Moose roles.
/I3az/
Related
I'm aware that Perl is not statically typed when I want to apply this mechanism to a Perl object of a derived class:
Say I have a base class B and a derived class D inheriting from B.
Also I have an object $obj that holds a D object.
A function Bf() is expecting a parameter of type B.
Obviously (by the rules of polymorphism) I can pass $obj to Bf() like Bf($obj), but unlike to a static-typed language Bf() will see the whole D object (and not just the elements of B).
Is there a (rather clean and simple) solution for this problem in Perl? The solution should "hide" the attributes (and methods) a B does not have from D in Bf(), not restricting modifications of the original B (which is D actually).
Adult Programmers only (added 2020-03-06)
OK, people wanted a more concrete description.
Unfortunately (as pointed out) the original program is highly complex and uses reflection-like mechanisms to generate getters, setters and formatters automatically, to I really can't give a minimum working example here, because it would not be minimal.
First I have a class MessageHandler that handle messages (no surprise!).
Then I have a function log_message($$$) that expects (among others) a MessageHandler object as first argument.
Then I have this hierarchy of classes (it's much more complex in reality):
MessageHandler
ControlMessageHandler (ISA: MessageHandler)
ControlMessageResponseHandler (ISA: ControlMessageHandler)
Now if log_message wants a MessageHandler I can pass a ControlMessageResponseHandler as it conforms to MessageHandler.
But doing so exposes all the attributes of ControlMessageResponseHandler to log_message that are non-existent in MessageHandler.
The danger is that log_message might (by mistake) access an attribute of ControlMessageResponseHandler that is not present in MessageHandler. To prevent errors I'd like to prevent that, or at least get some warning (like I would get in a statically-typed language as Eiffel).
Dirty Details inside
Just in case it matters, I'll sketch how my array objects are built (a lot of extra code would be needed for a working example):
First the array indices are allocated automatically like this:
use constant I_VERBOSITY => IS_NEXT->(); # verbosity level
use constant I_TAG => IS_NEXT->(); # additional tag
use constant I_TAG_STACK => IS_NEXT->(); # tag stack
use constant I_MSG_DEBUG => IS_NEXT->(); # handler for debug messages
...
use constant I_LAST => IS_LAST->(); # last index (must be last)
I_LAST is needed for inheritance.
The attributes are defines like this:
use constant ATTRIBUTES => (
['verbosity', I_VERBOSITY, undef],
['tag', I_TAG, \&Class::_format_string],
['tag_stack', I_TAG_STACK, undef],
['msg_debug', I_MSG_DEBUG, \&Class::_format_code],
...
);
The definition contains a hint how to format each attribute.
This information is used to set up formatters to format each attribute like this:
use constant FORMATTERS =>
(map { Class::_attribute_string($_->[0], $_->[1], undef, $_->[2]) }
ATTRIBUTES); # attribute formatters
Getters and setters are automatically defined like this:
BEGIN {
foreach (ATTRIBUTES) {
Class::_assign_gs_ai(__PACKAGE__, $_->[0], $_->[1]);
}
}
The constructor would use the following lines:
my $self = [];
$#$self = I_LAST;
$self->[I_VERBOSITY] = $verbosity;
...
And finally my object print routine goes like this:
sub as_string($)
{
my $self = shift;
my $a_sep = ', ';
return join($a_sep, map { $_->($self, $a_sep) } FORMATTERS);
}
With inheritance it looks like this:
sub as_string($)
{
my $self = shift;
my $a_sep = ', ';
return join($a_sep, $self->SUPER::as_string(),
map { $_->($self, $a_sep) } FORMATTERS);
}
I'm not sure what your problem is, although I think you took the long way to say "I have a function that expects a B object, and I want to pass it a D object."
If you only want objects of a certain exact type, don't accept anything else:
use Carp qw(croak);
sub Bf {
croak "Bad object! I only like B" unless ref $_[0] eq 'B';
...
}
But, that's a bad idea. A derived class should be just as good as the base class. The clean solution is to not care what type you get.
sub Bf {
croak "Bad object! Doesn't respond to foo!" unless $_[0]->can('foo');
...
}
Since this Bf method works with the base class, why would it look for something in some derived class it didn't know about? If the derived class has changed the interface and no longer acts like its parent, then maybe it's isn't a good fit for inheritance. There are many problems like this that are solved by a different architecture.
I think you'll have to come up with a concrete example where the derived class wouldn't work.
It sounds like for some reason you need your D object to behave like a B object, but at the same time not like a D object. As the existing answers and comments indicate, it's a very common to use a sub-class where the base class is expected, and most algorithms shouldn't care whether what you actually passed is D or B. The only reason I can think of why you would want otherwise is that D overrides (redefines) some methods in an incompatible way, and you want the methods from B instead.
package Dog;
sub new {
my ($class, %args) = #_;
return bless \%args, $class;
}
sub bark { print "Bark!\n"; }
package Dingo;
use parent 'Dog';
sub bark { print "...\n"; }
package main;
my $dingo = Dingo->new;
$dingo->bark; # "..."
(n.b., I've left off the recommended use strict; and use warnings; for terseness, they should be used in all packages)
You may be aware from reading perldoc perlootut and perldoc perlobj that an object in Perl is just a blessed reference of some sort; in the example above, we use a hash reference. If you are trying to get the "attributes" that only exist in B, I think you would have to write some sort of translation method. But, if you care about the methods that exist in B, all you have to do is re-bless it into the parent class.
my $dingo = Dingo->new;
$dingo->bark; # "..."
bless $dingo, "Dog";
$dingo->bark; # "Bark!"
Note that bless does not return a new reference, but modifies that reference in-place; if you want it to behave like a Dingo again, you have to bless it back.
Perhaps more conveniently you can define a method to create a copy for you and bless it into the appropriate class:
package Dog;
sub as_dog {
my ($self) = #_;
# The {} below create a shallow copy, i.e., a new reference
return bless { %{$self} }, __PACKAGE__;
}
#...
package main;
my $dingo = Dingo->new;
$dingo->bark; # ...
$dingo->as_dog->bark; # Bark!
$dingo->bark; # ...
While there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, temporary "re-blessing" the object seems to get quite close to what is asked for:
sub Bf($) # expects a "B" object (or descendant of "B" (like "D"))
{
my $B = shift;
my $type = ref($B); # save original type
die "unexpected type $type" unless ($B->isa('B'));
bless $B, 'B'; # restrict to "B"'s features
$B->whatever(...);
#...
bless $B, $type; # restore original type
}
Trying to understand Moose:
use Modern::Perl;
package FOO {
use Moose;
sub rep { say " <report></report>"; }
sub doc {
say "<document>";
inner();
say "</document>";
}
}
package BAR {
use Moose;
extends 'FOO';
around 'rep' => sub {
my $orig = shift;
my $self = shift;
say "<document>";
$self->$orig(#_);
say "</document>";
};
augment 'doc' => sub {
say " <report></report>";
};
}
package main {
BAR->new->rep;
say "===";
BAR->new->doc;
}
Produces...
<document>
<report></report>
</document>
===
<document>
<report></report>
</document>
... the same result. When desinging the "model (object hierarchy)" - based on what I should decide when to use around and when augment?
Here are probably other (deeper) things what i currently didn't understand yet.
Can please someone provide an "more deep" explanation, because reading tru the Moose/Manual/MethodModifiers obviously not helped enough...
augment and around do rather different things. augment is designed to make this sort of pattern easier:
package Document {
use Moose;
sub make_document {
my $self = shift;
return "<doc>" . $self->_document_innards . "</doc>"
}
# stub; override in child class
sub _document_innards {
my $self = shift;
return "";
}
}
package Invoice {
use Moose;
extends 'Document';
sub _document_innards {
my $self = shift;
return "Give me money!";
}
}
With augment it becomes:
package Document {
use Moose;
sub make_document {
my $self = shift;
return "<doc>" . inner() . "</doc>"
}
}
package Invoice {
use Moose;
extends 'Document';
augment make_document => sub {
my $self = shift;
return "Give me money!";
};
}
On the other hand, around is used as a replacement for doing $self->SUPER::method(#args) because SUPER can't work in roles (the notion of which package to check superclasses for is bound at compile-time, so $self->SUPER::method(#args) would check superclasses of the role (i.e. none) instead of superclasses of the class that consumed the role. If you're not using roles, then SUPER can still be used in Moose classes just fine. TLDR: SUPER is broken by roles, so Moose gives you around as an alternative.
Another thing to compare is override which is a bit like around, but gives you this super() function which is perhaps slightly cleaner than $self->$orig(#_). It also has an "there can be only one" feature. If two roles try to provide an around modifier for the same method, that's fine: they both get to wrap the method (though the order in which they are applied is undefined). If two roles try to provide an override modifier, that's an error.
The implementation of augment is somewhat fragile in my experience, so that in my book is a reason to avoid it. Don't try to replace it with around, because they do rather different things. Instead, replace it with the pattern used in my first example above.
Using around should always be your first instinct. As (Moose creator) Stevan Little says about augment:
Thankfully, only a small percentage of people actually grok this
feature and of those people only a handful of them are crazy enough to
try and use it.
Assume the following code:
package Thing;
sub new {
my $this=shift;
bless {#_},$this;
}
sub name {
my $this=shift;
if (#_) {
$this->{_name}=shift;
}
return $this->{_name};
}
Now assume we've instantiated an object thusly:
my $o=Thing->new();
$o->name('Harold');
Good enough. We could also instantiate the same thing more quickly with either of the following:
my $o=Thing->new(_name=>'Harold'); # poor form
my $o=Thing->new()->name('Harold');
To be sure, I allowed attributes to be passed in the constructor to allow "friendly" classes to create objects more completely. It could also allow for a clone-type operator with the following code:
my $o=Thing->new(%$otherthing); # will clone attrs if not deeper than 1 level
This is all well and good. I understand the need for hiding attributes behind methods to allow for validation, etc.
$o->name; # returns 'Harold'
$o->name('Fred'); # sets name to 'Fred' and returns 'Fred'
But what this doesn't allow is easy manipulation of the attribute based on itself, such as:
$o->{_name}=~s/old/ry/; # name is now 'Harry', but this "exposes" the attribute
One alternative is to do the following:
# Cumbersome, not syntactically sweet
my $n=$o->name;
$n=~s/old/ry/;
$o->name($n);
Another potential is the following method:
sub Name :lvalue { # note the capital 'N', not the same as name
my $this=shift;
return $this->{_name};
}
Now I can do the following:
$o->Name=~s/old/ry/;
So my question is this... is the above "kosher"? Or is it bad form to expose the attribute that way? I mean, doing that takes away any validation that might be found in the 'name' method. For example, if the 'name' method enforced a capital first letter and lowercase letters thereafter, the 'Name' (capital 'N') bypasses that and forces the user of the class to police herself in the use of it.
So, if the 'Name' lvalue method isn't exactly "kosher" are there any established ways to do such things?
I have considered (but get dizzy considering) things like tied scalars as attributes. To be sure, it may be the way to go.
Also, are there perhaps overloads that may help?
Or should I create replacement methods in the vein of (if it would even work):
sub replace_name {
my $this=shift;
my $repl=shift;
my $new=shift;
$this->{_name}=~s/$repl/$new/;
}
...
$o->replace_name(qr/old/,'ry');
Thanks in advance... and note, I am not very experienced in Perl's brand of OOP, even though I am fairly well-versed in OOP itself.
Additional info:
I guess I could get really creative with my interface... here's an idea I tinkered with, but I guess it shows that there really are no bounds:
sub name {
my $this=shift;
if (#_) {
my $first=shift;
if (ref($first) eq 'Regexp') {
my $second=shift;
$this->{_name}=~s/$first/$second/;
}
else {
$this->{_name}=$first;
}
}
return $this->{_name};
}
Now, I can either set the name attribute with
$o->name('Fred');
or I can manipulate it with
$o->name(qr/old/,'ry'); # name is now Harry
This still doesn't allow stuff like $o->name.=' Jr.'; but that's not too tough to add. Heck, I could allow calllback functions to be passed in, couldn't I?
Your first code example is abolutely fine. This is a standard method to write accessors. Of course this can get ugly when doing a substitution, the best solution might be:
$o->name($o->name =~ s/old/ry/r);
The /r flag returns the result of the substitution. Equivalently:
$o->name(do { (my $t = $o->name) =~ s/old/ry/; $t });
Well yes, this 2nd solution is admittedly ugly. But I am assuming that accessing the fields is a more common operation than setting them.
Depending on your personal style preferences, you could have two different methods for getting and setting, e.g. name and set_name. (I do not think get_ prefixes are a good idea – 4 unneccessary characters).
If substituting parts of the name is a central aspect of your class, then encapsulating this in a special substitute_name method sounds like a good idea. Otherwise this is just unneccessary ballast, and a bad tradeoff for avoiding occasional syntactic pain.
I do not advise you to use lvalue methods, as these are experimental.
I would rather not see (and debug) some “clever” code that returns tied scalars. This would work, but feels a bit too fragile for me to be comfortable with such solutions.
Operator overloading does not help with writing accessors. Especially assignment cannot be overloaded in Perl.
Writing accessors is boring, especially when they do no validation. There are modules that can handle autogeneration for us, e.g. Class::Accessor. This adds generic accessors get and set to your class, plus specific accessors as requested. E.g.
package Thing;
use Class::Accessor 'antlers'; # use the Moose-ish syntax
has name => (is => 'rw'); # declare a read-write attribute
# new is autogenerated. Achtung: this takes a hashref
Then:
Thing->new({ name => 'Harold'});
# or
Thing->new->name('Harold');
# or any of the other permutations.
If you want a modern object system for Perl, there is a row of compatible implementations. The most feature-rich of these is Moose, and allows you to add validation, type constraints, default values, etc. to your attributes. E.g.
package Thing;
use Moose; # this is now a Moose class
has first_name => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Str',
required => 1, # must be given in constructor
trigger => \&_update_name, # run this sub after attribute is set
);
has last_name => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Str',
required => 1, # must be given in constructor
trigger => \&_update_name,
);
has name => (
is => 'ro', # readonly
writer => '_set_name', # but private setter
);
sub _update_name {
my $self = shift;
$self->_set_name(join ' ', $self->first_name, $self->last_name);
}
# accessors are normal Moose methods, which we can modify
before first_name => sub {
my $self = shift;
if (#_ and $_[0] !~ /^\pU/) {
Carp::croak "First name must begin with uppercase letter";
}
};
The purpose of class interface is to prevent users from directly manipulating your data. What you want to do is cool, but not a good idea.
In fact, I design my classes, so even the class itself doesn't know it's own structure:
package Thingy;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $name = shift;
my $self = {};
bless, $self, $class;
$self->name($name);
return $self;
}
sub name {
my $self = shift;
my $name = shift;
my $attribute = "GLUNKENSPEC";
if ( defined $name ) {
$self->{$attribute} = $name;
}
return $self->{$attribute};
}
You can see by my new constructor that I could pass it a name for my Thingy. However, my constructor doesn't know how I store my name. Instead, it merely uses my name method to set the name. As you can see by my name method, it stores the name in an unusual way, but my constructor doesn't need to know or care.
If you want to manipulate the name, you have to work at it (as you showed):
my $name = $thingy->name;
$name =~ s/old/ry/;
$thingy->name( $name );
In fact, a lot of Perl developers use inside out classes just to prevent this direct object manipulation.
What if you want to be able to directly manipulate a class by passing in a regular expression? You have to write a method to do this:
sub mod_name {
my $self = shift;
my $pattern = shift;
my $replacement = shift;
if ( not defined $replacement ) {
croak qq(Some basic error checking: Need pattern and replacement string);
}
my $name = $self->name; # Using my name method for my class
if ( not defined $name ) {
croak qq(Cannot modify name: Name is not yet set.);
}
$name = s/$pattern/$replacement/;
return $self->name($name);
}
Now, the developer can do this:
my $thingy->new( "Harold" );
$thingy->mod_name( "old", "new" );
say $thingy->name; # Says "Harry"
Whatever time or effort you save by allowing for direct object manipulation is offset by the magnitude of extra effort it will take to maintain your program. Most methods don't take more than a few minutes to create. If I suddenly got an hankering to manipulate my object in a new and surprising way, it's easy enough to create a new method to do this.
1. No. I don't actually use random nonsense words to protect my class. This is purely for demo purposes to show that even my constructor doesn't have to know how methods actually store their data.
I understand the need for hiding attributes behind methods to allow for validation, etc.
Validation is not the only reason, although it is the only one you refer to. I mention this because another is that encapsulation like this leaves the implementation open. For example, if you have a class which needs to have a string "name" which can be get and set, you could just expose a member, name. However, if you instead use get()/set() subroutines, how "name" is stored and represented internally doesn't matter.
That can be very significant if you write bunches of code with uses the class and then suddenly realize that although the user may be accessing "name" as a string, it would be much better stored some other way (for whatever reason). If the user was accessing the string directly, as a member field, you now either have to compensate for this by including code that will change name when the real whatever is changed and...but wait, how can you then compensate for the client code that changed name...
You can't. You're stuck. You now have to go back and change all the code that uses the class -- if you can. I'm sure anyone who has done enough OOP has run into this situation in one form or another.
No doubt you've read all this before, but I'm bringing it up again because there are a few points (perhaps I've misunderstood you) where you seem to outline strategies for changing "name" based on your knowledge of the implementation, and not what was intended to be the API. That is very tempting in perl because of course there is no access control -- everything is essential public -- but it is still a very very bad practice for the reason just described.
That doesn't mean, of course, that you can't simply commit to exposing "name" as a string. That's a decision and it won't be the same in all cases. However, in this particular case, if what you are particularly concerned with is a simple way to transform "name", IMO you might as well stick with a get/set method. This:
# Cumbersome, not syntactically sweet
Maybe true (although someone else might say it is simple and straightforward), but your primary concern should not be syntactic sweetness, and neither should speed of execution. They can be concerns, but your primary concern has to be design, because no matter how sweet and fast your stuff is, if it is badly designed, it will all come down around you in time.
Remember, "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" (Knuth).
So my question is this... is the above "kosher"? Or is it bad form to expose the attribute that way?
It boils down to: Will this continue to work if the internals change? If the answer is yes, you can do many other things including but not limited to validation.)
The answer is yes. This can be done by having the method return a magical value.
{
package Lvalue;
sub TIESCALAR { my $class = shift; bless({ #_ }, $class) }
sub FETCH { my $self = shift; my $m = $self->{getter}; $self->{obj}->$m(#_) }
sub STORE { my $self = shift; my $m = $self->{setter}; $self->{obj}->$m(#_) }
}
sub new { my $class = shift; bless({}, $class) }
sub get_name {
my ($self) = #_;
return $self->{_name};
}
sub set_name {
my ($self, $val) = #_;
die "Invalid name" if !length($val);
$self->{_name} = $val;
}
sub name :lvalue {
my ($self) = #_;
tie my $rv, 'Lvalue', obj=>$self, getter=>'get_name', setter=>'set_name';
return $rv;
}
my $o = __PACKAGE__->new();
$o->name = 'abc';
print $o->name, "\n"; # abc
$o->name = ''; # Invalid name
Is it somehow possible to pass blocks to Moose methods? In standard Perl, I can define a function with prototypes like this
sub fn (&) {
my $code =\&{shift #_};
$code->();
}
and then pass a block to the function without explicit sub references, i.e. fn { say "Hi there, world" }.
I think this is only possible if the subroutine is the first parameter, and as this is always $self with a Moose method, it doesn't seem possible there, forcing me to do it the slightly more explicit way:
sub wrapper {
my ($self, $code) = #_;
$code->()
}
Wrapper->wrapper(sub { say "Hi there, world" });
Now this would be a pretty convenient way to wrap some blocks, i.e. to provide some additional text or conditionally execute code or wrap an eval around some code where the error handling stays the same (e.g. eval some code and log errors, record user etc.).
If I'm not missing something, is there some semi-convenient workaround or alternative method to achieve something like this without too much line noise?
Have a look at the PerlX::MethodCallWithBlock CPAN module which contorts the Perl syntax (via the Devel::Declare module) to allow you to put a block after a method call.
For e.g.:
use 5.016;
use warnings;
use PerlX::MethodCallWithBlock;
{
package Foo;
use Moose;
sub bar {
my ($self, $code) = #_;
$code->();
}
}
Foo->bar { say "Hi there world" };
This module was released as a proof of concept. So far I've had no issues with it but YMMV.
In script i initialize several handlers and set variables which should be available for functions in separate modules. Which is the best way to use them ($q, $dbh, %conf) in modules?
Example pseudo module:
package My::Module
sub SomeFunction (
#data = $dbh->selectrow_array("SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE Bar = ?", undef, $conf{Bar} );
return $q->p( "#data" );
)
1;
Example pseudo script:
use CGI;
use DBI;
use My::Module;
our $q = new CGI;
our $dbh = some_connenction_function($dsn);
our %conf = ( Foo => 1, Bar => 2, Random => some_dynamic_data() );
I understand that using main:: namespace will work, but there sholud be cleaner way? Or not?
package My::Module
Your modules should be independent of the context. That is, they shouldn't expect that $dbh is the database handler, or that they should return stuff in $q. or that configuration is kept in %conf.
For example, what if you suddenly find yourself with two instances of database handles? What do you do? I hate it when a module requires me to use module specific variables for configuration because it means I can't use two different instances of that module.
So you have two choices:
Either pass in the required data each time.
Create an object instance (that's right Object Oriented Programming) to store the required information.
Let's look at the first instance using your pseudo code:
sub someFunction (
%param = #_;
%conf = %{param{conf};
#data = $param{dbh}->selectrow_array(
"SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE Bar = ?", undef, $conf{Bar}
);
return $param{q}->p( "#data" );
)
1;
Example pseudo script:
use CGI;
use DBI;
use My::Module;
my $q = new CGI;
my $dbh = some_connenction_function($dsn);
my %conf = ( Foo => 1, Bar => 2, Random => some_dynamic_data() );
someFunction (
q => $q,
dbh => $dbh,
conf => \%conf,
);
Here I'm using parameter calls. Not too bad. Is it? Now if you need another select statement, you can use different variables.
Sure, but what if you don't want to keep passing variables all of the time. Well then, you can use an Object Oriented Techniques. Now, relax and calm down. There are many, many good reasons to use object oriented design:
It can simplify your programming: This confuses people because object oriented programming means thinking about how your program will work, then designing it, then creating the various objects. All you want to do is code and get it out of the way. The truth is that by thinking about your program and designing it makes your program work better, and you code faster. The design aspect keeps the complexity out of your main code and tucks it safely away in small, easily digestible routines.
It's what is cool in Perl: You're going to have to get use to object oriented Perl because that's what everyone else is writing. You'll be seeing lots of my $foo = Foo::Bar->new; type of statements. Newer Perl modules only have object oriented interfaces, and you won't be able to use them.
Chicks dig it: Hey, I'm just grasping at straws here...
Let's see how an object oriented approach might work. First, let's see the main program:
use CGI;
use DBI;
use My::Module;
my $q = new CGI;
my $dbh = some_connenction_function($dsn);
my %conf = ( Foo => 1, Bar => 2, Random => some_dynamic_data() );
my $mod_handle = My::Module->new (
q => $q,
dbh => $dbh,
conf => \%conf,
);
$mod_handle->someFunction;
In the above, I now create an object instance that contains these variables. And, magically, I've changed your Functions into Methods. A method is simply a function in your Class (aka module). The trick is that my instance (the variable $mod_handler has all of your required variables stored away nice and neat for you. The $mod_hander-> syntax merely passes this information for my into my functions I mean methods.
So, what does your module now look like? Let's look at the first part where I have the Constructor which is simply the function that creates the storage for my variables I need:
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my %param = #_;
my $self = {};
bless $self, $class
$self->{Q} = $q;
$self->{DBH} = $dbh;
$self->{CONF} = $conf;
return $self;
}
Let's look at the first thing that is a bit different: my $class = shift;. Where is this coming from? When I call a function with the syntax Foo->Bar, I am passing Foo as the first parameter in the function Bar. Thus, $class is equal to My::Module. It is the same as if I called your function this way:
my $mod_handle = My::Module::new("My::Module", %params);
instead of:
my $mod_handle = My::Module->new(%params);
The next thing is the my $self = {}; line. This is creating a reference to a hash. If you don't understand references, you should look at Mark's Reference Tutorial that's included in Perldocs. Basically, a reference is the memory location where data is stored. In this case, my hash doesn't have a name, all I have is a reference to the memory where it's stored called $self. In Perl, there's nothing special about the name new or $self, but they're standards that everyone pretty much follows.
The bless command is taking my reference, $self, and declaring it a type My::Module. That way, Perl can track whether $mod_handle is the type of instance that has access to these functions.
As you can see, the $self reference contains all the variables that my functions need. And, I conveniently pass this back to my main program where I store it in $mod_handle.
Now, let's look at my Methods:
sub SomeFunction {
$self = shift;
my $dbh = $self->{DBH};
my $q = $self->{Q};
my %conf = %{self->{CONF}};
#data = $dbh->selectrow_array(
"SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE Bar = ?", undef, $conf{Bar}
);
return $param{q}->p( "#data" );
}
Again, that $self = shift; line. Remember I'm calling this as:
$mod_handle->SomeFunction;
Which is the same as calling it:
My::Module::SomeFunction($mod_handle);
Thus, the value of $self is the hash reference I stored in $mod_handle. And, that hash reference contains the three values I am always passing to this function.
Conclusion
You should never share variables between your main program and your module. Otherwise, you're stuck not only with the same name in your program each and every time, but you must be careful not to use your module in parallel in another part of your program.
By using object oriented code, you can store variables you need in a single instance and pass them back and forth between functions in the same instance. Now, you can call the variables in your program whatever you want, and you can use your module in parallel instances. It improves your program and your programming skills.
Beside, you might as well get use to object oriented programming because it isn't going away. It works too well. Entire languages are designed to be exclusively object oriented, and if you don't understand how it works, you'll never improve your skills.
And, did I mention chicks dig it?
Adium
Before all the Perl hackers descend upon me. I want to mention that my Perl object oriented design is very bad. It's way better than what you wanted, but there is a serious flaw in it: I've exposed the design of my object to all the methods in my class. That means if I change the way I store my data, I'll have to go through my entire module to search and replace it.
I did it this way to keep it simple, and make it a bit more obvious what I was doing. However, as any good object oriented programmer will tell you (and second rate hacks like me) is that you should use setter/getter functions to set your member values.
A setter function is pretty simple. The template looks like this:
sub My_Method {
my $self = shift;
my $value = shift;
# Something here to verify $value is valid
if (defined $value) {
$self->{VALUE} = $value;
}
return $self->{VALUE};
}
If I call $instance->My_Method("This is my value"); in my program, it will set $self->{VALUE} to This is my value. At the same time, it returns the value of $self->{VALUE}.
Now, let's say I all it this way:
my $value = $instance->My_Method;
My parameter, $value is undefined, so I don't set the value $self->{VALUE}. However, I still return the value anyway.
Thus, I can use that same method to set and get my value.
Let's look at my Constructor (which is a fancy name for that new function):
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my %param = #_;
my $self = {};
bless $self, $class
$self->{Q} = $q;
$self->{DBH} = $dbh;
$self->{CONF} = $conf;
return $self;
}
Instead of setting the $self->{} hash reference directly in this program, good design said I should have used getter/setter functions like this:
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my %param = #_;
my $self = {};
bless $self, $class
$self->Q = $q; #This line changed
$self->Dbh = $dbh; #This line changed
$self->Conf = $conf; #This line changed
return $self;
}
Now, I'll have to define these three subroutines, Q, Dbh, and Conf, but now my SomeFunction method goes from this:
sub SomeFunction {
$self = shift;
my $dbh = $self->{DBH};
my $q = $self->{Q};
my %conf = %{self->{CONF}};
#data = $dbh->selectrow_array(
"SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE Bar = ?", undef, $conf{Bar}
);
return $param{q}->p( "#data" );
}
To this:
sub SomeFunction {
$self = shift;
my $dbh = $self->Dbh; #This line changed
my $q = $self->Q; #This line changed
my %conf = %{self->Conf}; #This line changed
#data = $dbh->selectrow_array(
"SELECT * FROM Foo WHERE Bar = ?", undef, $conf{Bar}
);
return $param{q}->p( "#data" );
}
The changes are subtle, but important. Now my new function and my SomeFunction have no idea how these parameters are stored. The only place that knows how they're stored is the getter/setter function itself. If I change the class data structure, I don't have to modify anything but the getter/setter functions themselves.
Postscript
Here's food for thought...
If all of your SQL calls are in your My::Module function, why not simply initialize the $dbh, and the $q there in the first place. This way, you don't need to include the Use Dbi; module in your program itself. In fact, your program now remains blissfully ignorant exactly how the data is stored. You don't know if it's a SQL database, a Mongo database, or even some flat Berkeley styled db structure.
I'm including a module I did for a job long, long ago where I tried to simplify the way we use our database. This module did several things:
It handled everything about the database. The initialization, and all the handles. Thus, your main program didn't have to use any module but this.
It also moved away from the developer writing select statements. Instead, you defined what fields you wanted, and it figured out how to do the query for you.
It returns an incriminator function that's used to fetch the next row from the database.
Take a look at it. It's not the greatest, but you'll see how I use object oriented design to remove all of the various issues you are having. To see the documentation, simply type in perldoc MFX:Cmdata on the command line.
Using main:: explicitly is perfectly clean
As an alternative, you can pass that data into the module constructor method assuming your module is object based (or copy it into module's own variables from main:: in the constructor). This way the not-quite-perfwectly-pretty main:: is hidden away from the rest of the module.
One cleaner way is to use Exporter to make symbols from other namespaces available in your package. If you are just an occasional Perl programmer, I wouldn't bother with it because there's a bit of a learning curve to it, there are lots of gotchas, and for a toy project it makes the code even more complex. But it is essential for larger projects and for understanding other people's modules.
Usually, there are global variables (or especially global functions) in a package that you want to use in a different module without qualifying it (i.e., prepending package:: to every variable and function call). Here's one way that Exporter might be used to do that:
# MyModule.pm
package MyModule;
use strict; use warnings;
use Exporter;
our #EXPORT = qw($variable function);
our $variable = 42; # we want this var to be used somewhere else
sub function { return 19 }; # and want to call this function
...
1;
# my_script.pl
use MyModule;
$variable = 16; # refers to $MyModule::variable
my $f = function(); # refers to &MyModule::function
Your problem spec is backwards (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that) -- you want variables in the main script and main package to be visible inside another module. For a short list of variables/functions that are used many times, a cleaner way to do that might be to hack at the symbol table:
package My::Module;
# required if you use strict . You do use strict , don't you?
our ($q, $dbh, %conf);
*q = \$main::q;
*dbh = \$main::dbh;
*conf = \%main::conf;
...
Now $My::Module::q and $main::q refer to the same variable, and you can just use $q in either the main or the My::Module namespace.