On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Tomas Doran wrote:
>
> On 10 May 2008, at 15:26, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> >* Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-10 09:25]:
> >>If I was to hack some code (and tests) up which supported my
> >>originally suggested syntax ( Chained('sub1', 'sub2') for
> >>joining chains), what would anyone feel about it?
> >
> >You could no longer make `uri_for` work in the general case if
> >you did that.
>
> Aha! I had a feeling the reason that someone didn't do that already
> is that there was a compelling reason to not do so - I just hadn't
> thought about it hard enough..
That's a compelling reason not to rush in, but I still think it's possible.
The trick is to provide some way to disambiguate - either a preferred path
(which could vary between controllers, say) or maybe passing an arrayref
of action objects indicating the precise chain.
Have a think about it and see about an RFC if you're still interested; the
trouble is the extra bookkeeping rapidly gets us to the point where the
base class + N controllers approach isn't really any more typing anyway,
which is why I've not given this much time yet.
--
Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
Technical Director http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform?
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/ http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/
_______________________________________________
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/
