On 28 Aug 2009, at 19:05, Bill Moseley wrote:
Well, if you were going to write something like RenderView now would
you still write it as an ActionClass?
Yes, as Render view isn't something I would ever want two of them on
the same action.
As a counter example, Catalyst::ActionRole::ACL is _much better_ as an
action role, as then it plays nicely with Catalyst::Action::REST
(which should itself be an actionrole!) and other things..
The purpose is to have a standard end() that I use in multiple
applications -- similar to RenderView as I mentioned.
Yeah, in your case, I would probably just go with a controller role
which wraps the end method, as this is conceptually simpler than an
actionclass, but either is a perfectly appropriate decision.
Anyway, using "before 'end'" is probably the way to go in the role
instead of "sub end".
Yes, that's significantly better, due to the fact that methods from
roles will be silently ignored if the local class has a method of that
name.
What I'd be doing is something like this:
package MyApp::Role::Foo;
use Moose::Role -traits => 'MethodAttributes';
sub end : Action {}
before 'end' => sub { # Your code here };
package MyApp::Controller::Foo;
use Moose;
BEGIN { extends 'Catalyst::Controller' }
with 'MyApp::Role::Foo';
# Works like this, OR you can say:
# sub end : Action {
# # Your code here, will get wrapped with your modifier.
# }
BTW -- will the helpers for catalyst.pl start generating Moose-ified
context and controller classes at some point soon?
Yes, this is in the pipeline right now - but nobody has wanted to
tackle it till the GSOC -Devel refactoring is complete. This is
hopefully going to be brushed up and merged fairly soon now. :)
Cheers
t0m
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
