On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.de wrote:
* Zbigniew Lukasiak zzb...@gmail.com [2010-04-26 12:25]:
This is a fine advice - but unfortunately the -param method
call suffers from additional problem - which is described in
much detail in the documentation (go
On 26 Apr 2010, at 16:27, Steve Nolte wrote:
HTTP::BrowserDetect gives you the detection, and you could setup a
separate view for those templates with a fallback to the previous
templates.
You configure the secondary view with multiple paths (INCLUDE_PATH),
so you can override any template
On 26 Apr 2010, at 10:36, Dermot wrote:
Obviously I'd rather use the faster method but if I'm breaking the
encapsulation in some ways that's going to bite me later, I'd steer
clear.
Premature optimisation is the root of all evil.
I really really wouldn't be worrying about method call
On 26 Apr 2010, at 21:09, Kee Hinckley wrote:
I'm trying to get some old code running in a hurry. Unfortunately
Moose has completely fouled things up.First it broke my use of
Error.pm (conflict with with).
Erm, that'll only break things if you import the Moose helper
functions into the
Hi folks,
Recently after upgrading all of Catalyst, I'm witnessing some weird
behaviour in some apps. I'm using Catalyst::Plugin::Session::Store::DBIC
to store my sessions, and when I have DBIC_TRACE going, I see this:
BEGIN WORK
SELECT me.id, me.session_data, me.expires FROM session me
I'm running out of popcorn now so here's a quick summary of my observations
WRT getting request parameters:
- If a simple question about something so fundamental to what Catalyst is
for (i.e. Dermot's question, not Oleg's) can generate so much debate then
something's not right somewhere.
2010/4/27 J. Shirley jshir...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak zzb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Ben van Staveren
benvanstave...@gmail.com wrote:
Because if you are working with, say, 10 people on a team, and you will have
everyone merrily
Merlyn Kline wrote:
So I had a quick look at the docs (for the first time in many years - I
found them at http://search.cpan.org/~hkclark/Catalyst-Manual/) to see if I
could see what this is all about. The answer to Dermot's question is there
but it it's a bit obscured by the CGI.pm
I had the same problem. I boiled it down to Static::Simple. Each request
to a static resource issued a session update. In a recent
release of cat the handling of requests seemed to have changed.
Try downgrading to 5.80018 which fixed it for me (which is not a good
solution, but I have no time
* Zbigniew Lukasiak zzb...@gmail.com [2010-04-27 09:20]:
Not a very concrete answer - but I remember that Miyagawa
talked about fixing that in Plack::Request (and I am not sure
but I think it also involved H::MV) - so there might be some
occasion for reuse :)
Yeah, that’s exactly what he
Hi Moritz,
Yeah I just figured that one out - but that's new, never saw it do this
before to be honest - it's not a big deal actually since in production
Static::Simple isn't used and I let lighttpd take care of serving static
files, but in testing it's a bit disconcerting to see it crop up
Merlyn Kline wrote:
I propose that all references
to the req-param() interface should be replaced by references to the
$c-req-parameters-{} interface except where explicit discussions
of CGI.pm compatability are appropriate, which would only be very
briefly in the case of the Intro.
It's not
___
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/
Dermot wrote:
Why wouldn't you, as you write, use the the fastest access methods
available? Surely you'd want to develop habits that will a) provide
better performance and b) as mentioned below avoid the thorny
side-effects of req-params(). This isn't a matter of premature
optimisation but
On 27 April 2010 12:09, Carl Johnstone catal...@fadetoblack.me.uk wrote:
Dermot wrote:
Why wouldn't you, as you write, use the the fastest access methods
available? Surely you'd want to develop habits that will a) provide
better performance and b) as mentioned below avoid the thorny
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Oleg Pronin syber@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't nobody understand, the question is not why someone should
use $c-req-{params}. Of course that is an evil. Problem is that if
i could get -{parameters}{name} at a speed 100x there can't be no
reason for -params
Good morning,
On 27/04/10 at 1:22 PM +0100, Dermot paik...@googlemail.com wrote:
That comment was obviously tongue in cheek but there was an
underlining point that access via sub-routine reference is slower than
access via a hash. Toby was quick to point out that as far as he knew
17 matches
Mail list logo
