Re: [code-review] request for reviews: Application::Pipeline

I've looked at Pipeline, and found its api didn't let me do the sort of 
things that I was looking to do.  Application::Pipeline was originally 
going to be CGI::Pipeline, as it was addressing a number of issues 
raised on the CGI::Application mailing list, and as that was its source 
of inspiration, it has an api that  (i think) feels very akin to what I 
think CGI::Application users are used to (especially when used in 
conjunction with WWW::Pipeline::Services::RunModes).  As things 
progressed, the list and I both realized that this was shaping up to be 
a far more general framework than just working with cgi scripts, and 
beyond that more general than HTTP.

I found that Pipeline's strict adherence to using objects for all 
mechanisms left the api feeling somewhat opaque.  Also i did not see a 
way to insert handlers (segments) into random locations in the pipeline, 
but only a way to append them.  Finally, i thought it was important to 
be able to label different phases of a pipeline, so that developers 
working on interoperating modules would have a vocabulary they could use 
when discussing how the pipeline flows, and how their handlers fit into 
the overall picture.  The idea of 'services' that was being discussed on 
the mailing list also didn't seem to mesh well with the seemingly 
isolated nature of each segment in the pipeline.

Simon Wistow wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 11:21:40PM -0500, Stephen Howard said:
>  
>
>>I've been working on a framework stemming from discussions on the 
>>CGI::Application mailing list which i have wound up naming 
>>Application::Pipeline.  As suggested at this node on perlmonks:
>>    
>>
>
>I can't see the docs so I don't knwo if I'm barking up the right tree 
>but have you looked at the Pipeline module and, more importantly, the 
>Openframe module built round it?
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>code-review-ladder mailing list
>code-review-ladder-wool9L35kiek0rBIEb6pKdBc4/[email protected]
>http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/code-review-ladder
>
>  
>