[Catalyst] Re: Handy shotcuts

[Matt Lawrence]

J. Shirley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Michele Beltrame <mb at cattlegrid.info> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Aristotle!
>>
>>
>>  > But `uri_for` can take a lot more parameters than just one;
>>  > there's no reason you have to restrict your utility methods
>>  > to the first one.
>>
>>  Also, it would be handy to be able to pass the status parameter (i.e.
>>  303 is widely used) to res->redirect() when using these utlity methods
>>  as well.
>>
>>  Michele.
>>
>>  --
>>  Michele Beltrame
>>  http://www.cattlegrid.info/
>>  ICQ 76660101 - MSN mb at italpro.net
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  List: Catalyst at lists.scsys.co.uk
>>  Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
>>  Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
>>  Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
>>
>>     
>
> It seems more reasonable to have a slightly more intelligent utility method.
>
> Something that sets the status to 303 if the request type is a post
> (and HTTP 1.1 as Aristotle posted earlier, although I'm not sure what
> the "best" way to check is.  Assume it is unless stated otherwise, or
> vice-versa?)
>
>   
That makes sense for deciding whether or not to use 303, but deciding 
whether a redirection should be 301, 302 or 307 is not so deterministic.

Would it be evil to treat any initial /^3\d\d$/ argument as a status?

It would be cleaner, but less concise, to use a hash-like configuration:

# Temporary redirect to /my/action/1/2/3?q=search%20string
$c->uri_redirect({
    action => '/my/action',
    args => [qw( 1 2 3 )],
    status => 307,
    query => { q => "search string" },
    # detach => 1 ??
});

It should also be possible to support both syntaxes at once.

Matt