The subclassing of templates sounds really interesting, but actually I don't have many strong convitions on this front - I think we need some more experimentation. Or perhaps I have one idea about the templates. I found it really simpler to code some more complicated parts as perl functions, put
I am glad to see that the 'business logic in the model' side seem now to prevail in the Catalyst world. It was not so in the past - as this thread documents:
http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/2005-August/thread.html#1148 There is also a wiki page on this
Nate Wiger wrote:
Matt S Trout wrote:
Nate Wiger wrote:
If you can send me a pointer to writing a controller base class, I'll
certainly check it out. I didn't consider this an option, to be honest.
I was trying to model it after XMLRPC, which is nice and easy to load
with its :XMLRPC
Brian Kirkbride wrote:
At this point, if I want code reuse I have two reasonable choices:
A) Create business logic modules, ie. MyApp::Logic::CreateTrial, etc
B) Write my own business logic methods in MyApp::Schema::Trial-create(...)
Either is valid and from what I gather Java developers
On 8/19/06, Matt S Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the main bone of contention here is that Len is referring to hispersistence layer as the model, whereas I consider it to just be a persistencelayer - stuff like Model::DBIC::Schema is really only there for simple apps
where what you're
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Matt S Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-08-19 16:55]:
If you're modeling a domain, then your Model::* stuff should be
the model of the domain, and whether or not said model happens
to use DBIC stuff as its persistence store should be merely an
implementation detail that the
