On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:47:28 +0200 "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Maybe is a stupid suggestion that might not even be possible to do, but I think the syntax would look nicer if would be something like:
get '/secret' => sub { requires_login; ... };
get '/beer' => sub { requires_role 'BeerDrinker'; ... };
Should be possible! I'm not a big fan of that approach as it seems a little... manual; it feels only a step away from doing all the checking yourself :) My other objection is that it would be easy to forget to add the appropriate requires_* keyword call to a route, and thus have that route unprotected; one of the options I'd been planning with the current attributes-based approach was a setting to require all routes to have attributes set (and adding a new NoLoginNeeded one), so that you could optionally protect yourself against accidentally forgetting to protect newly-added routes. Having said that, though, it would be quite easy that way. -- David Precious ("bigpresh") <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook www.preshweb.co.uk/cpan www.preshweb.co.uk/github