Matt S Trout wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Rainer Clasen wrote: > > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > > You???re asking the wrong question. Sessions are a bad idea in > > > general; application state should live on the client, not the > > > server. All state on the server should be resource state, ie it > > > should have a URI of its own. > > > > I also consider "normal" sessions evil. My subsessions are still ugly, but > > at least they keep the state control in the client. > > > > The subsessions were my answer, when I failed to setup the Chained > > Dispatcher according to my laziness. > > So you failed to make a basic feature of Catalyst work.
well no. I looked at the Chained stuff and was distracted. With the input from the list I've ditched the Subsessions and went for Chained because it seems to be the "RightThing" - although Subsessions are a quite comfortable solution: Once setup, they're available everywhere within the application, no need to worry anymore. That's quite the opposite of Chained. Nearly all URIs in this project look like /<athlete>/diary/list or /<athlete>/exercise/add. This means all actions have to be setup for chaining manually, CaptureArgs have to be verified on each request, uri_for becomes a hassle to use and last but not least the chance to break the natural URI to Controller namespace mapping is quite likely. Rainer -- KeyID=759975BD fingerprint=887A 4BE3 6AB7 EE3C 4AE0 B0E1 0556 E25A 7599 75BD _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
