On 11 May 2008, at 15:18, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Tomas Doran wrote:
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.
I didn't really mean it wasn't possible - just that it was harder
than just a bit of fiddling with C::DT::Chained (the hardest part of
which, to make it 'look like' it's working, for the simple case, is
getting the debug table right ;) )
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.
The idea of uri_for having a method of passing uri_for hints which
are only valid in one context (i.e. Chained) kinda smells to me, but
then implicit behind the scenes magic also scares me... Hmm, I'll
have a think / play some more.
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.
That's totally fair, I'll see how $ork's problem space expands in the
next couple of iterations of the code, as I think this is a problem
that I'm going to see again when I start exposing more complex
objects - if that gets to a point of being painful with inheritance,
then I'll re-visit this.
Cheers
Tom
_______________________________________________
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/
