FAQ
It's a bit confusing that S::Simple doesn't serve static html files. They
are, after all, "static". I'm not sure what the security concerns are, but
given that S::S is only intended for development, wonder if that is the best
policy?

--
==========================
2People Blog: http://2-people.blogspot.com/
2People site: http://www.2people.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20060127/726b5384/attachment-0001.htm

Search Discussions

  • Andy Grundman at Jan 28, 2006 at 3:15 am

    Phil Mitchell wrote:
    It's a bit confusing that S::Simple doesn't serve static html files.
    They are, after all, "static". I'm not sure what the security concerns
    are, but given that S::S is only intended for development, wonder if
    that is the best policy?
    Sometimes I name my template files .html, that's why I included html in the
    list. You can easily override the exclusion list in config. :)

    -Andy
  • Phil Mitchell at Jan 28, 2006 at 6:35 am

    On 1/27/06, Andy Grundman wrote:
    Phil Mitchell wrote:
    It's a bit confusing that S::Simple doesn't serve static html files.
    They are, after all, "static". I'm not sure what the security concerns
    are, but given that S::S is only intended for development, wonder if
    that is the best policy?
    Sometimes I name my template files .html, that's why I included html in
    the
    list. You can easily override the exclusion list in config. :)

    It's not a big deal for me, ... but if "simple" is the goal...

    -Andy
    _______________________________________________
    Catalyst mailing list
    Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
    http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst


    --
    ==========================
    2People Blog: http://2-people.blogspot.com/
    2People site: http://www.2people.org
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20060127/9c993f22/attachment.htm
  • Ashley Pond V at Jan 28, 2006 at 6:47 am
    Yeah, me too.
    On Friday, January 27, 2006, at 09:42 PM, Phil Mitchell wrote:
    Sometimes I name my template files .html, that's why I included html
    in the
    list.??You can easily override the exclusion list in config. :)
    I think the goal should be what most developers would do and expect and
    not just the author's personal idiosyncrasies. I mean idioms, of
    course. :)

    -Ashley
  • Adam Clarke at Jan 28, 2006 at 8:16 am

    apv wrote:

    I think the goal should be what most developers would do and expect and
    not just the author's personal idiosyncrasies. I mean idioms, of course. :)
    A colleague of mine spent an embarrassingly long time trying to sort out
    why something so ::Simple wasn't working. He had assumed it was due to
    his own incompetence rather than lack of DWIMiness in this module :)

    I suspected the reason was as is now confirmed but I thought I should
    add his feedback by proxy for good measure.

    He said "That sucks!".

    Cheers

    --
    Adam C
  • Andy Grundman at Jan 28, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Adam Clarke wrote:
    apv wrote:
    I think the goal should be what most developers would do and expect and
    not just the author's personal idiosyncrasies. I mean idioms, of
    course. :)
    A colleague of mine spent an embarrassingly long time trying to sort out
    why something so ::Simple wasn't working. He had assumed it was due to
    his own incompetence rather than lack of DWIMiness in this module :)
    First stop, read the documentation! ;)

    -Andy
  • Aristotle Pagaltzis at Jan 28, 2006 at 5:46 pm
    * Andy Grundman [2006-01-28 15:25]:
    First stop, read the documentation! ;)
    And pay very close attention not to miss an innocuous-looking
    subclause somewhere in the middle of an unremarkable paragraph of
    a multipage POD. Doesn?t seem surprising that four people have
    piped up so far about having been tripped by this, and I find it
    very unlikely that all of them failed to read the docs at all.

    I think it?s also fair to assume that literally almost everyone
    who uses ::Static::Simple will want to serve `.html` files
    statically, so it would fall under the ?good defaults? banner to
    make the module do what most people will need from it without
    having to configure it.

    I?d also put a short ?DEFAULTS? section close to the start of the
    doc that prominently calls out the defaults so the ?this is the
    time in our program where you look at the manual? defense is
    actually credible.

    Regards,
    --
    Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
  • Jesse Sheidlower at Jan 29, 2006 at 5:23 am

    On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 05:53:53PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
    I think it???s also fair to assume that literally almost everyone
    who uses ::Static::Simple will want to serve `.html` files
    statically, so it would fall under the ???good defaults??? banner to
    make the module do what most people will need from it without
    having to configure it.

    I???d also put a short ???DEFAULTS??? section close to the start of the
    doc that prominently calls out the defaults so the ???this is the
    time in our program where you look at the manual??? defense is
    actually credible.
    OK, we're at least somewhat convinced :-).

    We're rewriting docs to clarify this, and are discussing
    un-defaulting .html files.

    Jesse Sheidlower
  • Christopher H. Laco at Jan 29, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Jesse Sheidlower wrote:
    On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 05:53:53PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
    I think it???s also fair to assume that literally almost everyone
    who uses ::Static::Simple will want to serve `.html` files
    statically, so it would fall under the ???good defaults??? banner to
    make the module do what most people will need from it without
    having to configure it.

    I???d also put a short ???DEFAULTS??? section close to the start of the
    doc that prominently calls out the defaults so the ???this is the
    time in our program where you look at the manual??? defense is
    actually credible.
    OK, we're at least somewhat convinced :-).

    We're rewriting docs to clarify this, and are discussing
    un-defaulting .html files.

    Jesse Sheidlower
    Just for the sake of asking, isn't everything in the root/static folder
    served statically even if it's not static content?

    -=Chris

    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: signature.asc
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 187 bytes
    Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
    Url : http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20060129/5eeac943/signature.pgp
  • Andy Grundman at Jan 29, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Christopher H. Laco wrote:
    Just for the sake of asking, isn't everything in the root/static folder
    served statically even if it's not static content?
    Nope, root/static is not special unless you configure it that way. Only files
    with extensions are served as static files.

    -Andy
  • Christopher H. Laco at Jan 29, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Andy Grundman wrote:
    Christopher H. Laco wrote:
    Just for the sake of asking, isn't everything in the root/static folder
    served statically even if it's not static content?
    Nope, root/static is not special unless you configure it that way. Only
    files with extensions are served as static files.

    -Andy
    Right, which I think is the stem of the confusion somewhat. Outside of
    static, I'd expect things to play the mime game. Inside of static, I
    expect everything to be....static.

    Adding html to the list of static files is a win/lose proposition. Some
    like it. Some don't.

    If anything, I think the static directory should be just that: 100% of
    the things found in it should be served directly san processing.

    Maybe that's just me.
    -=Chris

    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: signature.asc
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 187 bytes
    Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
    Url : http://lists.rawmode.org/pipermail/catalyst/attachments/20060129/545f1006/signature.pgp
  • Wijnand Wiersma at Jan 29, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    Christopher H. Laco wrote:
    If anything, I think the static directory should be just that: 100% of
    the things found in it should be served directly san processing.
    I agree.

    Wijnand
  • Matt S Trout at Jan 29, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 06:52:35PM +0100, Wijnand Wiersma wrote:
    Christopher H. Laco wrote:
    If anything, I think the static directory should be just that: 100% of
    the things found in it should be served directly san processing.
    I agree.
    This is why I liked the old Plugin::Static - I could just add something like

    sub static :Local { shift; shift->serve_static; }

    to my app class and stop thinking about it.

    --
    Matt S Trout Offering custom development, consultancy and support
    Technical Director contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
    Shadowcat Systems Ltd. mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information

    + Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcatalyst @
categoriescatalyst, perl
postedJan 28, '06 at 2:11a
activeJan 29, '06 at 6:49p
posts13
users9
websitecatalystframework.org
irc#catalyst

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase