Hello David, thanks for your response,

2013/1/3 David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Alexis Sukrieh <sukria@sukria.net> wrote:
>
> I don't get it. Do you have something that works (or is supported) in Dancer
> 1 regarding session that is not in Dancer 2? If so, please enlight that, and
> I'd be very happy to fix it.

Look at the configuration values of Dancer::Session::Abstract.  Are
all supported in D2?

Hint: ack for "session_name" in the D2 source tree, then ack for
"dancer\.session".

Oh yes, you're right, I'll focus on this one as soon as I have time to go back to the code (hopefully this weekend).
 

Sessions happened to be the very first thing I was curious about in
D2, given bugs I was finding in D1.  Then I looked and found a big
oversight like session configuration apparently unimplemented.

And I can tell you that the way sessions are handled in D2 are WAY better than in D1, exactly because of the experience I had with D1 bugs. I did a complete article in the advent calendar to stress how better it is now:  http://advent.perldancer.org/2012/5

I understand your point, you spotted one thing that I forgot, the configuration bits, it's being handled soon. That's my next todo item for D2. I've assigned the issue to myself.

If I find that in the first place I look, should I expect similar
oversights elsewhere?  

I don't think so, although we should be honnest, D2 is younger than D1, of course, and yes, you're right, new software is less stable than old software. But my main point was that trying, or experimenting a D2 migration helps *a lot* D2 to move forward. See all the discussion that rose thanks to Celogeek's migraiton.

I was just saying that it could be a very good opportunity for you to contribute and help us make D2 more stable, if you want to.
 
Do I need to grok the entire architecture and
do a code review to be sure?  Maybe I was (un)lucky and found the one
place that still has issues, but it's that kind of thing that makes me
uncomfortable switching.

I don't think you should do a code-review, although I'd be very happy to have even more eyes on the code, as always. I think D2 is ready now for real-life tests, that's why I said that. Of course, that means beta-testing the monster, which requires some spare time and goodwill, of course ;)
 

Did I do a code review of D1?  No.  But then I expect that a large
number of people using it for a few years have found the issues
already.  (Part of why I came to use Dancer is that it has already
been well-established.)  On the surface, D2 looks like D1, but it's
such a re-write that I don't want to be a super-early-adopter and
certainly not until the unimplemented sections I did find are fixed.


I see your point of view, no problem ;)

Stay tuned, then.