[dancer-users] Cannot instal Dancer2-Plugin-Passphrase-v2.0.4 - No DSL object found

[Sawyer X]

This shouldn't be in the migration document since it isn't Dancer core,
it's just a plugin API change. The plugin should indicate it.

I also support removing the stringification. If a warning is to produced,
it means stringification should either be allowed with a warning, or cause
a croak instead.

Henk, what do you think?

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Gabor Szabo <gabor at szabgab.com> wrote:
>
> IMHO stop the stringification (with some warning) and remove it from the
> pod as well.
> (and add it to the Migration document as well).
>
> Gabor
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Sawyer X <xsawyerx at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You're right. I removed the stringification when redoing the API. I
>> didn't return it and the docs still retain that message.
>>
>> I'm still not sure whether it should stringify. That's always a source of
>> trouble.
>>
>> We could stringify with a deprecation or just keep it.
>> What is your opinion?
>> (other than that the docs should be up-to-date :)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Gabor Szabo <gabor at szabgab.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I just noticed the documentation of both modules (Dancer:: and
>>> Dancer2::) have this in their pod:
>>>
>>> "For convenience the object will automagically return the RFC 2307
>>> representation when no method is called on it."
>>>
>>> Which means it should still stringify to the rfc2307 value.
>>>
>>> Gabor
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Gabor Szabo <gabor at szabgab.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Finally I got to the point where I was actually testing the part where
>>>> Dancer2::Plugin::Passphrase is used  and I think
>>>> I there is a change from the API of Dancer::Plugin::Passphrase
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the 'generate' method of the new module return a
>>>>  Dancer2::Plugin::Passphrase::Hashed object
>>>> and does not stringify to the rfc2307 value as happened in the case of
>>>> the Dancer1 version.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the documentation I see both say that I should store the
>>>> ->rfc2307  value, but because of the stringification I have missed
>>>> that earlier.
>>>>
>>>> If you decided to not include the stringification, then maybe this
>>>> should be emphasized in the docs as well.
>>>>
>>>> Gabor
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dancer-users mailing list
> dancer-users at dancer.pm
> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/pipermail/dancer-users/attachments/20141214/10308022/attachment.html>