I'm coming in late and trying to catch up on this. After reading this
entire thread I don't get a sense of consensus yet and have to wonder
what the rush is. If there is one thing you take away from this
message it's slow down and think this through ESPECIALLY if this is
going to be added into the core.

I have to agree with Ron about featurities and over-engineering (my
term). I'm big on doing the simplest thing possible that works. After
scanning this thread and the wiki page I get the sense that the scope
is too broad and ambitious which in my experience means it is likely
to fail. Even with all forms of pattern matching removed this still
seems like a bit much.

Let me come at this from a different direction. Is
CGI::Application::Dispatch so deficient that it needs to be scrapped
or receive a major overhaul? I liked it quite a bit (Nice work
Michael. :) because I believe that if you have long complex URLs
schemes to manage then you are doing something wrong. (That's my
RESTful leanings.) It always did right by me. Besides limitations are
fun and good for creativity. (A mantra of the 37 signals team I have
to concur with.)

Where is the discussion of what you can't do with
CGI::Application::Dispatch? Why these missing features are essential
(as opposed to nice to have). This isn't clear to me at all.

Anyway, these are my initial thoughts. I need to think about this a
bit more reading over the wiki page and some of its references. I
wanted to put these thoughts out there now  since Mark is talking
about implementation already. Which brings me back to my first point
so I'll stop here.

<tim/>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to