[dancer-users] Sessions in D2 (was Before Hook hit multiple times).

[Alexis Sukrieh]

Hello David, thanks for your response,

2013/1/3 David Golden <xdg at xdg.me>

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Alexis Sukrieh <sukria at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/pipermail/dancer-users/attachments/20130104/31f46e32/attachment.htm>