Re: [Catalyst] ActionClass vs. Moose Role?
On 28 Aug 2009, at 19:05, Bill Moseley wrote:
Well, if you were going to write something like RenderView now would
you still write it as an ActionClass?
Yes, as Render view isn't something I would ever want two of them on
the same action.
As a counter example, Catalyst::ActionRole::ACL is _much better_ as an
action role, as then it plays nicely with Catalyst::Action::REST
(which should itself be an actionrole!) and other things..
The purpose is to have a standard end() that I use in multiple
applications -- similar to RenderView as I mentioned.
Yeah, in your case, I would probably just go with a controller role
which wraps the end method, as this is conceptually simpler than an
actionclass, but either is a perfectly appropriate decision.
Anyway, using before 'end' is probably the way to go in the role
instead of sub end.
Yes, that's significantly better, due to the fact that methods from
roles will be silently ignored if the local class has a method of that
name.
What I'd be doing is something like this:
package MyApp::Role::Foo;
use Moose::Role -traits = 'MethodAttributes';
sub end : Action {}
before 'end' = sub { # Your code here };
package MyApp::Controller::Foo;
use Moose;
BEGIN { extends 'Catalyst::Controller' }
with 'MyApp::Role::Foo';
# Works like this, OR you can say:
# sub end : Action {
# # Your code here, will get wrapped with your modifier.
# }
BTW -- will the helpers for catalyst.pl start generating Moose-ified
context and controller classes at some point soon?
Yes, this is in the pipeline right now - but nobody has wanted to
tackle it till the GSOC -Devel refactoring is complete. This is
hopefully going to be brushed up and merged fairly soon now. :)
Cheers
t0m
___
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/
Re: [Catalyst] ActionClass vs. Moose Role?
On 28 Aug 2009, at 18:25, Bill Moseley wrote: I was starting to implement a custom ActionClass (similar to RenderView) and then wondered if it would be better written as a Moose role. Maybe - depends what you're doing. They're doing different things really, and I'd need more details to make a recommendation. Is there a reason to use one over another? Last I looked, an action is limited to a single ActionClass (although it's easy to deal with that), but depending on how it's done, could apply multiple roles. Catalyst::Controller::ActionRole gets around this, you can apply many roles to your action. That is, one way would be to define the end() method in the role and not even have it in the consuming controller class, or another would be to have a end() stub in the controller and and then use before 'end' in the role. That way multiple roles could be applied. Yep, that also totally works. Is everything going to be a role at some point? ;) Not _everything_, but yes - a lot of stuff.. Cheers t0m ___ 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/
Re: [Catalyst] ActionClass vs. Moose Role?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Tomas Doran bobtf...@bobtfish.net wrote: On 28 Aug 2009, at 18:25, Bill Moseley wrote: I was starting to implement a custom ActionClass (similar to RenderView) and then wondered if it would be better written as a Moose role. Maybe - depends what you're doing. They're doing different things really, and I'd need more details to make a recommendation. Well, if you were going to write something like RenderView now would you still write it as an ActionClass? The purpose is to have a standard end() that I use in multiple applications -- similar to RenderView as I mentioned. I guess the difference is if you want to apply code to any action vs. a specific action. RenderView is typically applied just to the end() method (or a method forwarded to from end() ), so maybe it's really better as a role since it would always alter end(). But if I want to apply code to different (and specific) actions then ActionClass is probably better since it can be set per action. Anyway, using before 'end' is probably the way to go in the role instead of sub end. BTW -- will the helpers for catalyst.pl start generating Moose-ified context and controller classes at some point soon? -- Bill Moseley mose...@hank.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/
