[Catalyst] Why does $c->stats require -Debug flag?

[Jonathan Rockway]

* On Thu, Apr 24 2008, Jon Schutz wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 19:16 +0100, Matt S Trout wrote:
>> That's not a compromise, that's an AUTOLOAD, which is poor coding practice
>> when you know what methods the object on the other side exists.
>
> Indeed it is a compromise.  

It's not a compromise.  It's laziness that makes Catalyst less reliable.
Thousands of people rely on Catalyst to not take half-assed shortcuts.
Why resort to hacks that have the potential to fuck things up for
everyone but save 3 seconds of your time?  This isn't PHP :)

>> I'm aware you object on principle; however I've stated very clearly why I
>> believe your objections are incorrect and since you're contributing to
>> Catalyst I'd ask that you follow the current Catalyst standards for
>> backwards compatibility even if you disagree, just the same as you'd do
>> for coding style and other matters of opinion. If I ever contribute to one
>> of your projects I'll happily return the favour :)
>
> No problems, if that's what the Catalyst standard says; I must have
> missed it.  Where is it?  I'd like to consult it on a number of
> matters... please post the link.

Basically it's more of a "zeitgeist" than an actual document.  There are
some things that the community has decided and "just do".  One is not
breaking things or adding features between point releases.  We've fucked
this up a number of times, but that doesn't really matter, the point is
we try to fix our mistakes.  Compare this to other frameworks that just
break things and say "fuck you".

> The fact that it's supposedly already in a stage of "completely broken"
> kind of undermines that theory.

Not really.  It just means we need to fix it even sooner.

> I'm quite aware that I've spent more time debating the point than it
> would have taken just to do this nugatory work, but then we wouldn't be
> having this interesting discussion.  Can we put a timescale on it?  What
> is the plan for release of 5.7013 and/or 5.80?

Can you either:

 * do this now
 * or say you're not going to do it?

That would make it easier for someone else to just get this done.  

Obviously you aren't obligated to do anything, because it's an open
source project.  But when someone contributes changes, we release them,
and then realize that there's a problem, it's nice to have the
contributor around to fix the issues.  When they just disappear or argue
against the project's conventions, it doesn't really look good, right?

The stats code is good stuff.  Why taint it with flamewars when it can
be loved-by-everyone in just a few minutes? :)

Regards,
Jonathan Rockway

-- 
print just => another => perl => hacker => if $,=$"