Simon Flack:
>
>I don't think it's a very portable design or will help people to write
>portable Maypole applications.
>
>I don't think the proposed design is portable since it ignores the other
>Maypole providers: Maypole::CLI, MasonX::Maypole and Jellybean::Container::
>Maypole.
>
Very good argument against it.
>I think the best way you can achieve portability is for the
>controller to have a well-defined, but flexible API. I'm not sure what that
>is, but perhaps something like:
>
> $r->cookie();
> $r->header();
> $r->param(...);
>
>with cookie() and header() being Class::Data::Inheritable hashes of CGI::
>Cookie objects and header strings.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>
Maybe it's best to make it separate CPAN modules, Maypole::Cookie,
Maypole::Header...
>--simonflk
>
>_______________________________________________
>maypole mailing list
>maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
>http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
>
>
>
sebastian
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:56 GMT