[Catalyst] Mason view hackers (and other views), PING

[Dave Rolsky]

On Sat, 12 May 2007, Matt S Trout wrote:

>> In my opinion, the dhandler portion of Mason is entirely superfluous when
>> using Catalyst. Catalyst already provides many dispatch options to do
>> similar things, including default() methods in your controller, which act
>> more or less exactly like dhandlers. I always kind of assumed default()
>> and auto() had been inspired by Mason, because they work so much like
>> Mason does.
>>
>> The autohandler stuff is still really useful, but I just use it for
>> wrapping header/footers or path-specific menus around the called
>> component.
>
> dhandlers largely yes, autohandlers maybe not
>
> plus the component inheritence stuff could be useful.

Sure, I just didn't follow your comment about Chained controllers and 
integrating that with Mason's internal component dispatching.

FWIW, Jon Swartz and I have been talking about what Mason 2.0 would look 
like. We both agreed that we'd want to make the templating piece 
standalone, without the framework bits. We'd still support autohandlers, 
but probably not dhandlers. Component inheritance I'm on the fence with. 
It can be really useful, but it's so fantasticaly easy to abuse and make a 
mess with. I guess that's Perl for you ;)

>> I guess my take on it is that you do the dispatching part in your
>> controller, and as part of that, you should also decide what component to
>> call for the view. The default for this in the Mason view seems to be the
>> same as that in the TT2 view, which is to use $c->req->match. That seems
>> reasonable to me.
>
> That's one of the things that needs to change, the standard for views is
> now $c->action.

Easy enough to fix.


-dave

/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org                        www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg.       My book blog
===================================================*/