Actually, I'm leveraging it more than the average CGI::App user. I have a CGI::App subclass that manages my framework. If I have an app, say, a CRUD app to manage contact lists, it exists as a subclass of my framework class, and might have 5-10 instance scripts. Should I have a peculiar version, sure, i'll subclass it and have some particulars, for for a lot of apps only the templates and the names of some fields change. So I reuse the parent class. A lot. More than most CGI::App people, based on my questions in the past few years on that mailing list.

I'm not clear on what you're suggesting that I'm not doing.

You were mentioning that developer A produces version 1.0 of some C::A subclass for application Foo. Then, developer B comes along and upgrades that same C::A subclass to version 1.1 for application Bar. All of a sudden, application Foo doesn't work the same.

To me, each application should have its own subclass, even if that class is nothing more than

package Our::Web::Apps::Foo;

use base 'Our::Web::Apps';

1;
[download]

If only to avoid the problem that you're discussing.

---

My criteria for good software:

1. Does it work?
2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?