in reply to Re: a Moose CGIP shall not receive merlyn's blessing
in thread CGI::Prototype leverages objects for web app control
Please don't misquote me.
I never said that a Moose-based CGIP was out of the question.
I said a non-prototype-Moose base class would not be acceptable.
Yes, that's right. I was typing in a hurry and made an overly general statement. My apology.
All you have to do is use a prototype-Moose base class, which either exists already, or is just a small matter of programming.
I would rather lean on standard Moose
- so I can leverage all the Moose extensions that exist
- so I dont have to worry about a splinter project and its potential bugs
Or, you can go off and do what you want. Just don't call it CGI::Prototype until it's prototype-based.
- You should change your docs. You say that CGIP creates a CGI application by subclassing which implies class-based OOP
- You should improve your docs (similar to my fork). When people scan your docs or your Linux magazine articles, they see nothing that cant be done just as easily with class-based OOP or CGI::Application. You need to motivate the unique position of this module with some exemplary sample code SOMEWHERE
- Please embrace the multiple concepts of prototype. A CGI prototype could be something which prototypes the CGI request cycle. And CGIP does an excellent job of that, regardless of which object system it uses. There's no need for a separate distribution for something which has largely the same code.