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

[Matt S Trout]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 06:19:48PM +0930, Jon Schutz wrote:
> > 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.

s/standards/convention/

There's no written standard currently; I'd love to see somebody take a
crack at writing one but I'm not sure what would need to go in it.

For example, not breaking people's code in a point release wherever possible
even if their code was technically the wrong thing to do is just something
you -do- if you're writing production quality libraries, to me. It never
occurred to me you'd need to write it down for people to realise it was a
good idea.
 
> > 
> > Please can you do a specific setup, with tests; I'd suggest using
> > Class::Inspector to pull the list of methods and to proxy all those that
> > don't currently exist in your class.
> > 
> > Then we can have a warning included and happily throw these methods out in
> > 5.80; the point is that people's code shouldn't go from "fully working" to
> > "completely broken" without a stage of "still works but warns them they're
> > doing it wrong" first (and note that if we'd called the method $c->_stats
> > I'd agree with you that it was private and we can deprecate it at will. but
> > we didn't. such is life)
> > 
> 
> The fact that it's supposedly already in a stage of "completely broken"
> kind of undermines that theory.
> 
> 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?

Next week or two would be ideal; if you can't make time that soon then
you need to say -now- so somebody else can fix this.

-- 
      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/