Bill Moseley wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:09:39AM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote: >> Bill Moseley wrote: >>> Yesterday I needed to add JSON support (both in the request and >>> response) to a few actions. I decided to try Catalyst::Action::REST. >>> >>> Well, actually, I first tried using just C::A::Serialize and >>> C::A::Deserialize -- but was not sure if those could be used >>> separately. That didn't work so then I just tried using the full >>> REST setup as described in the calendar. >>> >>> Well, that brings in C::Request::REST, which set the request object, >>> and I already have C::P::Server which does the same thing. >>> >>> Is there a way that multiple add-ons can work better together when >>> they need to add methods to the request object? >>> >>> >> I would think you could beat them at their own game. Make your own >> subclass, which inherits from both of their Request subclasses. Then, >> just have Cat use yours instead. > > Yes. But I'm wondering if there can't be a defined approach so that > module authors don't have to worry about stepping on other modules. > > I guess it depends if you want to override or just extend the existing > Request class. > >
I'd think the best thing would be for Request to be pluggable or component-ized just like $c
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
