On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I'm all for reusable code, but in no way should HTTP::Body start taking this behavior by default. I'm not really that sure how effective it is, anyway. decode_json( $c->req->body ); Is just not that hard :) -J _______________________________________________ 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/