David R. Baird:
>On 4 Sep 2004 at 16:12, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
>
>
>>David R. Baird:
>>
>>
>>>A couple of recent patches are playing around with $r->{query} and
>>>$r->{params}. Would it not be more sensible for Maypole to combine
>>>both GET and POST parameters into a single set, and put them in
>>>$r->{params}, and forget about $r->{query} altogether?
>>>
>>>
>>I don't know. A lot of the decisions I've made maintaining Maypole have taken
>>into consideration whether or not this would screw over existing Maypole
>>users. A change like this would, so I wouldn't do it.
>>
>>I suspect that I'd like to see behaviour-changing "fixes", like this one,
>>mentioned on maypole@ first to make sure users are aware that their
>>applications will break the next time they install Maypole. That sort of thing
>>tends to put users off a technology, if they're not expecting it.
>>
>>
>
>I certainly agree with you on that. Maybe a compromise would be to
>add something like $r->{all_params} to the mix, and deprecate query
>and params for the next couple of releases. Or slightly more riskily
>(but less reworking of templates), copy all the data into params
>(and/or query), and deprecate query (or params).
>
>
Hmm, I would like to put everything in $r->{params} and deprecate $r->query.
I will mention that on maypole@ and we will see if someone complains. :)
>I have to declare an interest (maybe it's an ulterior motive if
>you're a TT fan). MasonX::Maypole could break if future development
>of Maypole relied on looking in one or other place for submitted
>data.
>
>
>
>>Sebastian (the new Maypole maintainer) (hooray!) may view the world
>>differently, and I may after all be worrying about nothing, so I'll defer to
>>him from now on.
>>
>>
>
>Congrats Sebastian!
>
>
thx
>d.
>
>
>
>
Cheers,
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
maypole-dev mailing list
maypole-dev at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole-dev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:56 GMT