Re: Request handling using routes, containers, (internal) services

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Erik Huelsmann <..hidden..> wrote:
> Hi Chris, John,
>
> In the other thread, John mentioned the structure that web apps are growing
> to in general to have these components to facilitate growth beyond a certain
> size:
>
> So... the patterns we're discussing I'm seeing put in widespread use. I'd
> say those 3 things are crucial for us to define/decide how we're going to
> implement (and perhaps find some Perl framework to assist if those we're
> currently using are insufficient):
>
> * Request routing
> * Service container to make it easy to register and load services
> * Response object (which needs to include the definition of how to return
> exceptions).

Request routing is what Dancer would give us.  Same with a service container.

However, I don't think it really uses response objects as such.  In
fact i havent seen Perl frameworks usually exposing the response
objects to the developer as such.

With Catalyst and Mojolicious usually you get a controller object
which can be told to render a response.  Dancer makes these into
modules which get called where needed, so no controller object.
Speaking of which I need to finish up the remaining issues in the
Dancer-based admin tool :-D

Here's what I have in progress there.  Feedback is welcome

https://github.com/ledgersmb/App-LedgerSMB-Admin-Web/blob/master/lib/App/LedgerSMB/Admin/Web/Database.pm

But that's the paradigm that we'd get.  For auth and http errors see

https://github.com/ledgersmb/App-LedgerSMB-Admin-Web/blob/master/lib/App/LedgerSMB/Admin/Web/Auth.pm
>
>
>
> So, I'm now thinking how we can apply these concepts to LedgerSMB with or
> without the context of using Plack and/or Starman. I'm imagining that we
> will have to handle a certain amount of it ourselves internally and that we
> possibly could hand off some of it to Plack's middleware modules.

In 1.5 we always use Plack.  CGI will even be wrapped in Plack.  But
that is good, since Dancer and Catalyst also wrap Plack.
>
> What I've been thinking about for some time now is that we might want to
> virtualize our current module names 'aa.pl' etc. into routes. For aa.pl,
> there really are physical files, but for other routes, we may not want to
> handle the route processing the same way.
>
> Is this something that we need to address "now" (as in: design it asap and
> simply continue working on the code base, but use this as a paradigm for all
> code that's being (re)written)?

The hard part is formalizing routes, i.e. design.  The easy part is programming.

The question as always is the dependency question but I don't think
that is too much of a problem to be honest.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
>
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
> Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Monitor 25 network devices or servers for free with OpManager!
> OpManager is web-based network management software that monitors
> network devices and physical & virtual servers, alerts via email & sms
> for fault. Monitor 25 devices for free with no restriction. Download now
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/292181274;119417398;o
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
> ..hidden..
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor 25 network devices or servers for free with OpManager!
OpManager is web-based network management software that monitors 
network devices and physical & virtual servers, alerts via email & sms 
for fault. Monitor 25 devices for free with no restriction. Download now
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/292181274;119417398;o
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
..hidden..
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel