* Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> [2005-08-15 19:50]:
> Ewww.  I'd never use code like that.

At the HTTP level, it is cleaner design. Nobody on the other side
of the app interface will care whether it requires uglier
scaffolding under the hood, nor should they. Thus, neither do I.

> Yeah, hadn't envisioned that.  In my mind, state should come
> entirely from the incoming environment.  Mapping that to a
> class should be a separate responsibility for maximum
> pluggability.  Looks like the best way is to leave ->dispatch
> and call yours something like
>        CGIP::Dispatch::VariablePathinfo
> or something like that, using ::Dispatch:: rather than
> ::State:: or ::Mapping:: to show that it's replacing both.

I suppose that I’ll stick with the current monolithic design and
mind my own business for the time being, then. Since ::PathInfo
builds onto CGIP itself it should be unaffected by stuff that
gets added on top of that. I will see how it can be merged with
the future CGIP design that materializes.

*AUTOLOAD=*_=sub{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(",$\/"," ")[defined wantarray]/e;$1};

SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
cgi-prototype-users mailing list

Reply via email to