[Catalyst] Re: Subsessions?

[Matt S Trout]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Rainer Clasen wrote:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > You???re asking the wrong question. Sessions are a bad idea in
> > general; application state should live on the client, not the
> > server. All state on the server should be resource state, ie it
> > should have a URI of its own.
> 
> I also consider "normal" sessions evil. My subsessions are still ugly, but
> at least they keep the state control in the client.
> 
> The subsessions were my answer, when I failed to setup the Chained
> Dispatcher according to my laziness.

So you failed to make a basic feature of Catalyst work.

Then came up with a random nonexistant feature that would work around the
fact you couldn't make the basic feature of Catalyst work.

Then you asked the Catalyst list for help with *how to implement the
nonexistant thing* ...

I dunno if it's just me, but it strikes me that asking for help with Chained
in the first place would have been a much more sensible option ...

-- 
      Matt S Trout       Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
   Technical Director                    http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/
 Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  Want a managed development or deployment platform?
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/            http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/