Re: CGI::Prototype leverages objects for web app control

[merlyn]

Thanks for "getting it" about why I did CGIP.

And yes, had I started today, I would have done it all with Moose... a lot of things that I had to lean pretty heavily on Class::Prototyped for, almost to the point of breaking it, would have been simpler in Moose. In fact, I remember asking for prototype-style inheritance in Moose, to be told "it's possible, but we haven't done it yet". But that was two years ago.

If I wasn't so busy pushing Seaside for my newest web apps, I'd still be building on CGIP.

[Anonymous Monk]

Wow, Seaside website is so messed up, they broke scrolling with javascript

[Anonymous Monk]

When can you release new version?

[metaperl]

I have forked CGI::Prototype and wrote a Moose version that I wanted merged back into the distro, but merlyn refuses to have a standard Moose-based CGI version of CGIP in the distro - he said it had to use prototype OO.

As such, I have reserved the namespace CGI::Class but not released anything to CPAN.

[merlyn]

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.

All you have to do is use a prototype-Moose base class, which either exists already, or is just a small matter of programming.

Or, you can go off and do what you want. Just don't call it CGI::Prototype until it's prototype-based.

[Bloodnok]

I can see merlyns point to some degree, however I've not used Moose (and have no immediate plans so to do) but surely, implementing CGI::Prototype as you suggest would introduce previously unneeded dependencies, on the part of existing code, on Moose i.e. removing any backward compatibility ... or have I, not for the first time, missed something otherwise obvious ?

Surely you should be reserving/creating a new namespace e.g. CGI::Prototype::Moose, to make the provenance abundantly clear to all and sundry - in a manner that the namespace CGI::Class doesn't.