POLL - Hierachical config settings - preferred implementation?
Evening all, Pull request 459[1] by ambs introduces support for hierachical setting via the 'set' keyword, for instance, to have the same effect as the following in config.yml: engines: simple: extension: tt ... you'd be able to use: set 'engines/simple/extension' => 'tt'; There's been some discussion on whether this is the best way to do it, and the other suggestion is to use a hashref in Moose-ish fashion, e.g.: set engines => { +simple => { +extension => 'tt' } }; So, the question is, which do you prefer? Cheers Dave P [1] https://github.com/sukria/Dancer/pull/459 -- David Precious ("bigpresh") http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life". (Michael Sinz)
On 30/04/2011 20:15, David Precious wrote:
set 'engines/simple/extension' => 'tt';
vs
set engines => { +simple => { +extension => 'tt' } };
So, the question is, which do you prefer?
I prefer the first, not because it was my first implementation, but because it mimics XPath (or directory structure). But I understand that we are adding a specific syntax that is not Perl related, and that is why I offered myself to implement the Moose syntax. I just didn't have the time and open-mind to implement it. Cheers ambs
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Alberto Simoes <ambs@perl-hackers.net>wrote:
On 30/04/2011 20:15, David Precious wrote:
set 'engines/simple/extension' => 'tt';
vs
set engines => { +simple => { +extension => 'tt' } };
So, the question is, which do you prefer?
I prefer the first, not because it was my first implementation, but because it mimics XPath (or directory structure). But I understand that we are adding a specific syntax that is not Perl related, and that is why I offered myself to implement the Moose syntax. I just didn't have the time and open-mind to implement it.
I also vote for the first since it seems more direct and simple. The Moose syntax causes me to pause for a moment to parse it all out. Is there any advantage to the Moose syntax style? Christopher
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Christopher Taranto <christopher@tokpela.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Alberto Simoes <ambs@perl-hackers.net> wrote:
On 30/04/2011 20:15, David Precious wrote:
set 'engines/simple/extension' => 'tt';
vs
set engines => { +simple => { +extension => 'tt' } };
So, the question is, which do you prefer?
I prefer the first, not because it was my first implementation, but because it mimics XPath (or directory structure). But I understand that we are adding a specific syntax that is not Perl related, and that is why I offered myself to implement the Moose syntax. I just didn't have the time and open-mind to implement it.
I also vote for the first since it seems more direct and simple. The Moose syntax causes me to pause for a moment to parse it all out.
Is there any advantage to the Moose syntax style?
Well it's straight perl so no need to parse the string. I prefer the first as well just because it's less typing and easier for my brain to parse. That said, my vote doesn't count because I use the config file. I'd much rather have an option separate from YAML for that ;)
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Dancer-users mailing list Dancer-users@perldancer.org http://www.backup-manager.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/dancer-users
participants (4)
-
Alberto Simoes -
Brian E. Lozier -
Christopher Taranto -
David Precious