[cgiapp] Re lease CGI::Application::Plugin::Header

[Mark Stosberg]

On 03/25/2013 02:55 PM, Ryo Anazawa wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for maintaining CGI::Application.
> 
> I'll release yet another CGI::Application plugin,
> CGI::Application::Plugin::Header, on CPAN soon.

I've taken a second look at this, and have some more feedback on it.

- The docs open by comparing it to CGI::Header, but I think most people
will be coming from CGI.pm instead. I can understand why you would
thinking of the comparison the author, but I wouldn't assume it's
something readers would be familiar with.

- I think the most important thing is to say more right up front about
why the module exists. If you are are already using CGI.pm, why would
use this?

It's my understanding that it could be part of a solution of depending
on less on CGI.pm, but I think it could be spelled out better.

- In the docs for rehash(), I see that the canonical form of args is
made to be with the leading dashes. Instead, could be it /without/ the
dashes, unless they are required for particular attributes?

- It still references a "query object", which is defaults to CGI.pm.
Again, if the goal is to be a substitute for CGI.pm, why CGI.pm is being
used here could be better explained.

- I realize CGI::App still refers to a "query object", but it is a dated
concept, and one that the next major version of CGI::App will address. I
suggest instead refering to a "response" or "request", depending on
which part of the HTTP cycle you are referring to.  Of course, if you
referencing CGI::App's current "query" method, there's not much choice
then to call it that for now.

- My feedback about improving the opening description applies to the
CGI::App plugin as well. Those docs currently say:

"This plugin provides a way to handle CGI.pm-compatible HTTP header
properties."

The framework already does that. Spell otu right up front how this
plugin is different and/or better than the built-in methods.

   Mark