Re^2: Catalyst and the stash

It's pretty rare to send your entire CGI::App param() hash to a template though!

CGI::App's param() is meant to allow instance scripts to configure the application via the PARAM option to new(). Using it to hold global data generated inside the app isn't a very good idea in my opinion.

-sam

Comment on Re^2: Catalyst and the stash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Catalyst and the stash by astroboy (Chaplain) on Jul 20, 2005 at 02:56 UTC
CGI::App's param() is meant to allow instance scripts to configure the application via the PARAM option to new(). True, but I don't think that it's the only reason for param(). Param was recently a hot topic on the CGI::App mail list. It's also the preferred way for creating your own variables in your subclass of CGI::App without adding to the internal blessed hash directly. As such, you don't always want to do this in new(). It seems to me that the Catalyst stash is performing the same task.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Catalyst and the stash
by astroboy (Chaplain) on Jul 20, 2005 at 02:56 UTC

CGI::App's param() is meant to allow instance scripts to configure the application via the PARAM option to new().

True, but I don't think that it's the only reason for param(). Param was recently a hot topic on the CGI::App mail list. It's also the preferred way for creating your own variables in your subclass of CGI::App without adding to the internal blessed hash directly. As such, you don't always want to do this in new(). It seems to me that the Catalyst stash is performing the same task.

[reply]