On Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:46:27 -0500, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mark Stosberg wrote: > > On 2005-12-10, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>That's crazy talk! But seriously, I think we need to keep it as simple as > >>possible (I want to avoid having a dispatch parser that implements anything > >>close to a full grammar). All it needs to do is cover the majority of the > >>cases > >>at first. As more and more users try it out and discover real-world > >>use-cases > >>where it's not sufficient and then we can look at doing more. > > > > > > My philosophy exactly. So let's take out all forms of pattern matching > > out of the v1.0 design spec. We'll have several ideas to start from if > > we want to extend it later. > > > > I've updated the spec on the wiki with the following refinements: > > > > - "requirements" is gone altogether. > > - the "field => undef" syntax which as confusing is gone, replaced with > > the ":field?/" syntax which was suggested. > > How about "?field" instead. So a full pattern would be > > articles/list/:year/?month/?day > > instead of > > articles/list/:year/:month?/:day? > > Just 2 characters shorter. I don't know if that would be confusing since we're > used to seeing the '?' after the optional token in regexes. > > > I happy with the outcome and have the some sense we are ready to move > > from design and implementation. > > > > Final feedback? >
Another quick 2 yen's worth... It looks to me kind of like you're just reinventing a dumbed down regex language. Why not just use normal Perl regexs? Besides not having to remember another syntax, you've got pretty well every conceivable case covered from the start. In most cases the regexes will be really simple, but if you want to do something bizarre, you're not limited to the scenarios envisioned by the developers, (making simple things easy, difficult things possible, or however that goes) Dave > So do we want this to be in CGI::Application::Dispatch? Maybe there's someway > to > make it backwards compatible with what it currently does, since it's pretty > simple. Or we could break backwards compatability and go for a 2.x generation > and keep 1.x around... or have a separate module all together. Although > "CGI::Application::Dispatch" is the perfect name for this new functionality. > > -- > Michael Peters > Developer > Plus Three, LP > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
