[Catalyst] Authentication gotchas

[John Wang]

On 12/16/05, Christopher H. Laco <claco at chrislaco.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps plugin writers could come up with a convention for
> > prefixing their function names to help avoid conflict in the future.
>
> I agree. Or even better, don't polute the $c namespace unless there is
> one and only ever one module that will do it.
>
> Take C::P::FormValidator and C::P::FormValidator::Simple.
> The both claim $->form. Great. That's what plugins do right?
>
> [...]
>
> I think the auth stuff is different because it is itself pluggable
> underneath while still using the same C::P::Authentication -> $c->login.
>

Authen, authz, and session are only recently pluggable. I think the old
style authen had each plugin claiming $c->login and the old style session
plugins each claimed $c->session. Perhaps any popular area that is generic
enough to have multiple solutions should have a pluggable sub-framework?

I think there's some value to having a unified Catalyst $c level API for
common functionality as the API will be cleaner and it also allows you to
change the provider plugin you are using without changing your app much,
unless you're using some advanced functionality only available in that
particular provider.

Right now, changing providers easily seems to be an underlying theme in
Catalyst allowing for changes in authentication, sessions, views, engines,
etc. Does it make sense to continue this theme with validation, perhaps
making a validation sub-framework that DFV, DFVS and H::W can all plug into?

--
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20051216/7e84190d/attachment.htm