Matt S Trout wrote:
[..]
If your only argument is I need $c you can usually do a controller, view or
model with an ACCEPT_CONTEXT method. Often you only actually need the app
instance (i.e. the MyApp class name in 5.70) not the full request context.
Could someone point me example (some
: Krzysztof Krzyzaniak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: The elegant MVC web framework catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:18:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Plugins vs. Base Controllers
Matt S Trout wrote:
[..]
If your only argument is I need $c you can usually do a controller, view
- Original Message
From: Krzysztof Krzyzaniak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: The elegant MVC web framework catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:18:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Plugins vs. Base Controllers
Matt S Trout wrote:
[..]
If your only argument is I need
MVC web framework catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:40:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Plugins vs. Base Controllers
Mark Blythe wrote:
Spinning this off into a new thread.
So make it a controller base class.
People make everything a plugin by default because it seems
John Napiorkowski wrote:
I've been thinking that a plugin is something that usefully hooks into the
catalyst process, like authentication and sessioning or extends the existing
functions, like the dumper plugin extends the log object.
Actually, the Dumper plugin is strongly disrecommended
Spinning this off into a new thread.
So make it a controller base class.
People make everything a plugin by default because it seems like a good idea
at the time. This has resulted in massive compatibility issues due to
namespace collisions.
Don't Do It.
I've pondered the controller vs.
Mark Blythe wrote:
Spinning this off into a new thread.
So make it a controller base class.
People make everything a plugin by default because it seems like a good idea
at the time. This has resulted in massive compatibility issues due to
namespace collisions.
Don't Do It.
I've
