On 2005-12-14, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> o Why not use a different namespace? Try:
>> - Apache::PurePerl (witty and provocative, with many connotations)
>> - CGI::ResponseCycle
>> - HTTP::RequestServer
>> - A similar combination
The only people who can currently upload 'CGI::Application' are Jesse
Erlbaum and myself, and we aren't currently being being swayed by this
proposal. What we can't do is prevent a form with a similar name, like
CGI::Application::Plus.
So either way, I don't find much worth discussing about the name of
Rob's proposed project now.
> Huh? Have you actually read CGI::Prototype's code? Do you know what it
> does? When merlyn wrote it, he was thinking of something completely
> different than CA. I'm not reinventing CGI::Prototype. If anything,
> I'm reinventing the Apache bucket brigade, except that CA already has
> most of the buckets as callback hooks. It just needs a few more and
> we're done.
I won't try speak for the rest of the group, whom I'm fond of consulting
about important changes. Personally, if someone wants another hook
location, I'm open to it. I want to see a strong case for it though,
like "I've got this specific plugin idea, and I needs this specific
hook to work." I don't see that now.
If performance is a concern, I want specific benchmarks about why it's
too slow. Performance seems like an area where we already do well
relative to other frameworks, so I find it a surprising place to focus
attention.
Mark
--
http://mark.stosberg.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
