I have this Perl script with many defined constants of configuration files. For example:
use constant {
LOG_DIR => "/var/log/",
LOG_FILENAME => "/var/log/file1.log",
LOG4PERL_CONF_FILE => "/etc/app1/log4perl.conf",
CONF_FILE1 => "/etc/app1/config1.xml",
CONF_FILE2 => "/etc/app1/config2.xml",
CONF_FILE3 => "/etc/app1/config3.xml",
CONF_FILE4 => "/etc/app1/config4.xml",
CONF_FILE5 => "/etc/app1/config5.xml",
};
I want to reduce duplication of "/etc/app1" and "/var/log" , but using variables does not work. Also using previously defined constants does not work in the same "use constant block". For example:
use constant {
LOG_DIR => "/var/log/",
FILE_FILENAME => LOG_DIR . "file1.log"
};
does not work.
Using separate "use constant" blocks does workaround this problem, but that adds a lot of unneeded code.
What is the correct way to do this?
Thank you.
Using separate "use constant" blocks does workaround this problem, but that adds a lot of unneeded code.
Does it really?
use constant BASE_PATH => "/etc/app1";
use constant {
LOG4PERL_CONF_FILE => BASE_PATH . "/log4perl.conf",
CONF_FILE1 => BASE_PATH . "/config1.xml",
CONF_FILE2 => BASE_PATH . "/config2.xml",
CONF_FILE3 => BASE_PATH . "/config3.xml",
CONF_FILE4 => BASE_PATH . "/config4.xml",
CONF_FILE5 => BASE_PATH . "/config5.xml",
};
I don't see a lot of problems with this. You have specified the base path in one point only, thereby respecting the DRY principle. If you assign BASE_PATH with an environment variable:
use constant BASE_PATH => $ENV{MY_BASE_PATH} || "/etc/app1";
... you then have a cheap way of reconfiguring your constant without having to edit your code. What's there to not like about this?
If you really want to cut down the repetitive "BASE_PATH . " concatenation, you could add a bit of machinery to install the constants yourself and factor that away:
use strict;
use warnings;
use constant BASE_PATH => $ENV{MY_PATH} || '/etc/apps';
BEGIN {
my %conf = (
FILE1 => "/config1.xml",
FILE2 => "/config2.xml",
);
for my $constant (keys %conf) {
no strict 'refs';
*{__PACKAGE__ . "::CONF_$constant"}
= sub () {BASE_PATH . "$conf{$constant}"};
}
}
print "Config is ", CONF_FILE1, ".\n";
But at this point I think the balance has swung away from Correct to Nasty :) For a start, you can no longer grep for CONF_FILE1 and see where it is defined.
I'd probably write it like this:
use Readonly;
Readonly my $LOG_DIR => "/var/log";
Readonly my $LOG_FILENAME => "$LOG_DIR/file1.log";
Readonly my $ETC => '/etc/app1';
Readonly my $LOG4PERL_CONF_FILE => "$ETC/log4perl.con";
# hash because we don't have an index '0'
Readonly my %CONF_FILES => map { $_ => "$ETC/config$_.xml" } 1 .. 5;
However, that's still a lot of code, but it does remove the duplication and that's a win.
Why are your logfiles numeric? If they start with 0, an array is a better choice than a hash. If they're named, they're more descriptive.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With