[cgi-prototype-users] Re: CGI::Prototype::PathInfo

2005-08-07 Thread Terrence Brannon
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: A == A Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A Now my question is: should I put this on CPAN, or should I leave A the space to an “official” version? Or should I just post it A here, maybe? If I put this on CPAN myself, what should I put

Re: [cgi-prototype-users] Re: CGI::Prototype::PathInfo

2005-08-07 Thread Terrence Brannon
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: Terrence == Terrence Brannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terrence I have added Aristotle (sf.net id: apag) as a developer with Terrence plenty of liberal admin rights to the whole project - let me Terrence know if you need more. I couldn't

[cgi-prototype-users] Re: CGI::Prototype::PathInfo

2005-09-02 Thread Terrence Brannon
A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suppose that I’ll stick with the current monolithic design and mind my own business for the time being, then. I'm also in need of using PathInfo to render pages on a dynamic site. Can you make the PathInfo stuff you are doing available on sourceforge

[cgi-prototype-users] content-type and content: do they deserve separation / methods

2005-09-03 Thread Terrence Brannon
CGI::Prototype is remarkably flexible, scaleable and practical. That being the case, this is more of a philsophical question than any. However, it is a fact that for most websites, the content-type will be text/html for most of the pages and that the actual content will vary on each page. This

[cgi-prototype-users] each page is really an operation

2005-09-03 Thread Terrence Brannon
While I'm having my philosophical catharsis, I thought I would mention that CGI::Prototype is actually not a page-based approach to site development. It is an operation-based approach. An operation consists of several phases which are broken down by CGIP nicely. We have model phases and view

[cgi-prototype-users] Re: each page is really an operation

2005-09-05 Thread Terrence Brannon
A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Terrence Brannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-04 03:15]: To me, that means no cookies. But your discussion of 401 and 403 would imply such a mechanism for recognizing who made the request? I do (still?) use cookies. You are using a REST-inspired

[cgi-prototype-users] CGI::Prototype::PathInfo unified diff

2005-09-05 Thread Terrence Brannon
, metaperl) can +be notified. =head1 AUTHOR Aristote Pagaltzis, Lmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +contributions from Terrence Brannon and Randal Schwartz. + =head1 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE Copyright (C) 2005 by Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/perl/dl

[cgi-prototype-users] Notes of moving a site from HTML::Mason to CGI::Prototype

2005-09-15 Thread Terrence Brannon
I'm happy to say that HTML::Mason has been completely removed from my personal website: http://www.livingcosmos.org/ It was fairly easy to write a subclass of CGIP whose render phase took an HTML file and templated it. I just needed a RewriteRule to push all html files to the CGIP subclass:

Re: [cgi-prototype-users] Re: Tried to use My/App, unable to make it work

2005-10-13 Thread Terrence Brannon
On 13 Oct 2005 04:58:39 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com wrote: For a better tiny app, see my Linux Magazine articles (google site:stonehenge.com CGI::Prototype for the location). That location is: http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/LinuxMag/col70.html and also 7[12].html

Re: [cgi-prototype-users] CGIP and eager loading of Template and CGI in mod_perl-like environments

2005-10-30 Thread Terrence Brannon
On 10/29/05, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com [2005-10-29 16:50]: You can probably automate that if you wanted.I'm sure you can come up with a BEGIN block that reads the directory and loads all the plugins.Cf. Module::Pluggable. Yes, also:

[cgi-prototype-users] Prototyping CGI versus CGI::Prototype

2009-08-30 Thread Terrence Brannon
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Not really. The prototype stuff of Moose is where you want to start, and it has a different interface. If you just pulled in Class::Prototyped, you'd have a lot of potential conflicts, especially around anonymous classes. I see. I'm not trying to anger you, but I