J. Shirley wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Aristotle!
> But `uri_for` can take a lot more parameters than just one;
> there's no reason you have to restrict your utility methods
> to the first one.
Also, it would be handy to be able to pass the status parameter (i.e.
303 is widely used) to res->redirect() when using these utlity methods
as well.
Michele.
--
Michele Beltrame
http://www.cattlegrid.info/
ICQ 76660101 - MSN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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/
It seems more reasonable to have a slightly more intelligent utility method.
Something that sets the status to 303 if the request type is a post
(and HTTP 1.1 as Aristotle posted earlier, although I'm not sure what
the "best" way to check is. Assume it is unless stated otherwise, or
vice-versa?)
That makes sense for deciding whether or not to use 303, but deciding
whether a redirection should be 301, 302 or 307 is not so deterministic.
Would it be evil to treat any initial /^3\d\d$/ argument as a status?
It would be cleaner, but less concise, to use a hash-like configuration:
# Temporary redirect to /my/action/1/2/3?q=search%20string
$c->uri_redirect({
action => '/my/action',
args => [qw( 1 2 3 )],
status => 307,
query => { q => "search string" },
# detach => 1 ??
});
It should also be possible to support both syntaxes at once.
Matt
_______________________________________________
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/
