[cgiapp] Re: Titanium first impressions

[Mark Stosberg]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:36:22 +0100
Richard Jones <ra.jones at dpw.clara.co.uk> wrote:

> I've been having a play with Titanium. As I understand it, it's just a 
> class that WebApp inherits instead of the traditional 'use base 
> CGI::Application', and just loads some useful modules (CAP::*), but 
> doesn't include Dispatch, Authentication, etc so we still have to do 
> these manually? 

First, thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it. 

Generally, correct. It includes some plugins by default but not others.
It does include CGI::Application::Dispatch as a dependency, and does make
a point of advocating the use of it in the documentation. 

> What's the possibility of progressing Titanium to a 
> position where the dispatcher is integrated as default, as in Catalyst? 

What more integration do you want? CGI::Application::Dispatch is included as a
dependency, and how to use them together is documented is recommended. I think
the current integration works cleanly and nicely. 

> Ditto session support 

We include the CGI::Application::Plugin::Session method by default and document it.
How would you suggest refining this? 

> and authentication.  I know some folks have their 
> own individual preferences here, but it would be nice to have an 
> off-the-shelf implementation that could be used by default.

I rarely use the the Authorization and Authentication plugins and sometimes
find them overkill when I do use them. You can still add them simply with one
line of code to 'use them'. Or you can make a release that parallels Titanium
that makes different choices. 

I would consider including them by default if there is a groundswell of support
for it, but a project like this is no longer the "lowest common demoninator" of
functionality like CGI::Application is. It becomes a matter of taste and
preference about what to include and include by default.

If people want to release parallel modules as Titanium::Alloy::RJONES, that's
fine with me.

    Mark