* Dimitar Petrov <mita...@gmail.com> [2013-05-14 14:05]: > It was a reply to the whole thread.
Ah. > Yeah, we could probably add a warning. I dunno. I lean toward it but maybe the devs disagree. > I left it dispatch_on_die because it's concise with the action role, > but I guess abort_dispatch_in_chains_on_exception is more meaningful. I figured… well the action role is an action role, you don’t want to have to type too much, plus it’s clear when it applies by the fact that you apply it directly to an action. So a short name is good. But an app- global setting has to meet higher standards for specificity IMO. > Any other thoughts? Nothing else, I did the exact same thing. I dug through the execution flow of the dispatcher first and found that yes, Bill’s patch is exactly the right way to add this. (Well, short of the complete, chained-based refactoring of the dispatcher, in which case I’d do it a different way.) > If you already have your fork ready or differs from mine either > discard mine or fork it and add the warning? :) You have tests, I hadn’t gotten that far yet. I did fork and tweak Catalyst::Devel to add the config option to the new app boilerplate though. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
