On 9 May 2013, at 14:25, Bill Moseley mose...@hank.org wrote:
I have a feeling I asked this before, but cannot find the post.
[info] Exception powered by Catalyst 5.90030
What's the reasoning that chained actions continue to run after an earlier
exception?
You're after this:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Tomas Doran bobtf...@bobtfish.net wrote:
You're after this:
https://metacpan.org/module/Catalyst::ActionRole::DetachOnDie
which gives you the alternate behaviour (i.e. detaching from the chain on
first exception).
We have a number of applications, a few
On 5/10/13 10:10 AM, Bill Moseley wrote:
What would the developers think of deprecating this behavior (for the
few that might actually be relying on this) and issue a warning if a
config option is not set that fixes the issue?
+1
I have lots of ugly code that checks for $c-error in order
* Bill Moseley mose...@hank.org [2013-05-10 17:15]:
What would the developers think of deprecating this behavior (for the
few that might actually be relying on this) and issue a warning if
a config option is not set that fixes the issue?
I’ll second that, I’d love to drop some more unbreak-me
We should make it a config variable that defaults to the old behaviour but
adjust -Devel to default it to true in new apps.
This keeps back compat, but makes new apps behave 'correctly'.
+1 from me.
t0m
Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.de wrote:
* Bill Moseley mose...@hank.org [2013-05-10
