jfitzell at gmail.com
Fri May 27 13:10:22 UTC 2011
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Philippe Marschall
<philippe.marschall at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/5/27 Julian Fitzell <jfitzell at gmail.com>:
>> Hi list,
>> I'm playing with some ideas at the moment and someone asked whether we
>> shouldn't get rid of WARegistry in the process.
> I would support that in favor of a dedicated session store and a
> dedicated document store. The current solution with document handlers
> and sessions stored is quite messy for example because sessions can be
> looked by cookie but documents can't.
Yep, definitely part of what I'm playing with (though slightly
tangential). It wouldn't be hard to accommodate WARegistry as a
concept (a Dispatcher with dynamic keys, maybe or maybe not expiring -
but probably without cookie support) but I think WAApplication will
end up not being a subclass if this idea works out.
I'm still interested in hearing from the list more generally - if
you're using WARegistry for anything, please speak up.
More information about the seaside