Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple = CatalystX::RoseIntegrator
On 09/23/2007 10:36 AM, Alexandre Jousset wrote: Hello list, Following the preceding discussion, I scheduled Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple for deletion on CPAN and uploaded the same module under the name CatalystX::RoseIntegrator. Please wait the time required for it to show up. Thank you. -- Peter Karman . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . http://peknet.com/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple = CatalystX::RoseIntegrator
Hello list, Following the preceding discussion, I scheduled Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple for deletion on CPAN and uploaded the same module under the name CatalystX::RoseIntegrator. Please wait the time required for it to show up. I gave it version 0.02 because of this and a fix of a small typo in the POD. I also added a small example on how to use the RDBO feature of it, also in the POD. Again, feel free to ask me any question you want about this module and its use. Regards, -- \^/ -/ O \ | |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset | -|___| ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 08:29:26AM +0200, Alexandre Jousset wrote: Peter Karman a écrit : Alexandre Jousset wrote on 9/20/07 11:41 AM: I'm sure I haven't your experience but for me (and also for Peter Karman, C::C::Rose author), the suffix ::Simple (suggested by him) means Take all that [what already exists, i.e. Catalyst and Rose] and make it simpler to use together. Actually, I had suggested you use ::Simple because in your original email to me, (a) you had indicated you intended to use C::C::Rose, but with an API similar to the FormBuilder philosophy, and (b) you had a working title of C::C::Rose::FormManager, which I thought would be misleading, since all the existing C::C::Rose::* classes also manage forms. First, I am sorry to have spoken for you. I thought we were OK on that... As you indicate below, you don't use any of the C::C::Rose code, design or philosophy, so sharing the namespace seems misleading at the very least. So I'd prefer it if you used a difference namespace altogether. I believe the latest best practice recommendation is to use the CatalystX top-level space. Perhaps something like CatalystX::RHTMLOManager or similar. Well... I don't mind to call it something else, so now I'm just (once again) looking for a good name. CatalystX::Something, ok. CatalystX::RHTMLOManager, NOK because it also deals optionally with RDBO and I would like to mention this fact, and I think the best way is to use the Rose name. I think you should just rewrite the damn thing to use Controller::Rose. That seems like a much better idea to me since Peter Karman's code is already pretty stable and provides most of the things you need. Just provide a different interface on top. Re-inventing wheels is not the Catalyst way. If you want to write everything from scratch every time, might I recommend PHP. -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform? http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple
Matt S Trout a écrit : I think you should just rewrite the damn thing to use Controller::Rose. That seems like a much better idea to me since Peter Karman's code is already pretty stable and provides most of the things you need. Like what? Just provide a different interface on top. The interface of my module is just what makes it useful (well, at least for me) and was the reason of its writing. Re-inventing wheels is not the Catalyst way. Can you tell me what I reinvented exactly? If you want to write everything from scratch every time, might I recommend PHP. That comment really upsets me. As we are in recommendations I would recommend some smileys somewhere. I just wrote this module as a convenient interface for me to use the other modules for a personal project. I just wanted to give this to others. That's it! -- \^/ -/ O \ | |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset | -|___| ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple
Peter Karman a écrit : Alexandre Jousset wrote on 9/20/07 11:41 AM: I'm sure I haven't your experience but for me (and also for Peter Karman, C::C::Rose author), the suffix ::Simple (suggested by him) means Take all that [what already exists, i.e. Catalyst and Rose] and make it simpler to use together. Actually, I had suggested you use ::Simple because in your original email to me, (a) you had indicated you intended to use C::C::Rose, but with an API similar to the FormBuilder philosophy, and (b) you had a working title of C::C::Rose::FormManager, which I thought would be misleading, since all the existing C::C::Rose::* classes also manage forms. First, I am sorry to have spoken for you. I thought we were OK on that... As you indicate below, you don't use any of the C::C::Rose code, design or philosophy, so sharing the namespace seems misleading at the very least. So I'd prefer it if you used a difference namespace altogether. I believe the latest best practice recommendation is to use the CatalystX top-level space. Perhaps something like CatalystX::RHTMLOManager or similar. Well... I don't mind to call it something else, so now I'm just (once again) looking for a good name. CatalystX::Something, ok. CatalystX::RHTMLOManager, NOK because it also deals optionally with RDBO and I would like to mention this fact, and I think the best way is to use the Rose name. CatalystX::RoseIntegrator? ;-) My only concern is that a search on CPAN with Catalyst and Rose should make it show up. -- \^/ -/ O \ | |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset | -|___| ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple
Hello list, I just uploaded on CPAN the module : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Catalyst-Controller-Rose-Simple/ that makes use of Rose::* easier ith Catalyst. It is version 0.01, so use with care and development environment use only. I know, documentation and tests are not very good... Feel free to ask me any question you want. Cheers, -- -- \^/-- ---/ O \----- -- | |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset | -- ---|___|----- ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple
Hello Matt, Matt S Trout wrote: Feel free to ask me any question you want. Why haven't you submitted patches to the existing C-C-Rose? Any module called '-Simple' usually means there was an existing module that worked but I'm too lazy to patch it - please justify why that isn't the case here :) Well, I wasn't meaning that kind of question but hey, I said any question you want ;-)... Seriously, this is of course a good question, so here is my answer. I'm sure I haven't your experience but for me (and also for Peter Karman, C::C::Rose author), the suffix ::Simple (suggested by him) means Take all that [what already exists, i.e. Catalyst and Rose] and make it simpler to use together. In fact I don't even use its modules in mine since the goals are not the same and the functionalities don't overlap. The key point is that you can see it as the C::C::FormBuilder module reimplemented for Rose (and that was really the case). At first, on Peter's advice, I looked at C::C::Rose::* but I did not found anything relevant for what I was trying to do. I hope this answer your question. personal message I've seen you were coming to FPW2007 in Lyon, France. I'll also be there (presenting this module) so I'm looking forward to meet you IRL ;-) /personal message Regards, -- -- \^/-- ---/ O \----- -- | |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset | -- ---|___|----- ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple
Alexandre Jousset wrote on 9/20/07 11:41 AM: Hello Matt, Matt S Trout wrote: Feel free to ask me any question you want. Why haven't you submitted patches to the existing C-C-Rose? Any module called '-Simple' usually means there was an existing module that worked but I'm too lazy to patch it - please justify why that isn't the case here :) Well, I wasn't meaning that kind of question but hey, I said any question you want ;-)... Seriously, this is of course a good question, so here is my answer. I'm sure I haven't your experience but for me (and also for Peter Karman, C::C::Rose author), the suffix ::Simple (suggested by him) means Take all that [what already exists, i.e. Catalyst and Rose] and make it simpler to use together. Alexandre, Actually, I had suggested you use ::Simple because in your original email to me, (a) you had indicated you intended to use C::C::Rose, but with an API similar to the FormBuilder philosophy, and (b) you had a working title of C::C::Rose::FormManager, which I thought would be misleading, since all the existing C::C::Rose::* classes also manage forms. As you indicate below, you don't use any of the C::C::Rose code, design or philosophy, so sharing the namespace seems misleading at the very least. So I'd prefer it if you used a difference namespace altogether. I believe the latest best practice recommendation is to use the CatalystX top-level space. Perhaps something like CatalystX::RHTMLOManager or similar. In fact I don't even use its modules in mine since the goals are not the same and the functionalities don't overlap. The key point is that you can see it as the C::C::FormBuilder module reimplemented for Rose (and that was really the case). At first, on Peter's advice, I looked at C::C::Rose::* but I did not found anything relevant for what I was trying to do. I'd like to encourage you in your efforts at making the Rose projects easier to use with Catalyst. Since you've got a different approach to what easy means than I do, starting with a namespace that clearly delineates your project from mine seems to be in your best interest. pek -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
