byterock

So the time has come to pick which of the thee patterns I am going to choose to carry on. So here is how I evaluated each one giving advantages first.

Pure Moose;
Accomplished all system requirements, loaded and ran fast, required the least number of external modules, code easy to implement by LSD writers.

Requires the use of 'Klugeish' code son the DA side. The call '$class->new' can be confusing to some as this appears to be some sort of majik var. Options available on the interface are limited.

MooseX::ShortCut::BuildInstance;
Accomplished all system requirements, interface has many options which may prove useful, good name-space management, code easy to implement by LDS writers, clear interface on DA side of coding.

Slowest to load, has a moderate number of dependencies,

MooseX::Scaffold
Accomplished all system requirements, interface has many options which may prove useful

Second slowest to load, has a few dependencies, the code requires the most from the LSD writer and the interface for the DA writer is the largest.

So my choice is to with the Pure Moose version. The main reason I am going with this option is that I have no further dependencies and any problems I have with the style of code in the DA itself is my problem and stays largely hidden.

Scaffold was my lest favorite of the three because it makes thing a little harder form my LSD writers they have to remember to put in that

use DA_S::LSD elements=>'elements', view=>'view';.

Statement which may change with time while the other two where just simple role imports. One point on the Pure Moose is I am going to have to jig things about a come up with some roles to remove the code repartition/anti-pattern but that is another story so lets hope I made the right choice unlike this poor fellow