On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Bill Moseley <mose...@hank.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey > <hdp.perl.catalyst.us...@weftsoar.net> wrote: >> >> As far as I can tell, you missed the point of my message, which makes me >> wonder >> if I've missed the point of yours. Are you talking about a set of >> conventions >> you'd like to be able to build for your own use on top of HTTP::Body, or a >> set >> of conventions that you expect everyone will want and so should be built >> into >> HTTP::Body, or something else entirely? > > I thought you were saying that the request might not be a normal form > posting, and I was saying only that HTTP::Body can support that, too. > I was not suggesting everyone should use one method over another. > HTTP::Body seems (to me) like the natural place to deserialize. Yet, the > REST modules I cited use an action class to deserialize. Thus, I was > wondering if there was a specific reasons for that approach that I had not > understood. That's really all.
I cannot claim to understand all the concerns here - but to add my two cents: it sounds like this deserialisation thing is not something specific to Catalyst and now with other frameworks and libraries gaining grounds - it would make sense to put that logic into something reusable across them. -- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/