催化剂控制器问题
我刚刚在我的第一个大型项目中使用了催化剂，我想知道我是否按照预期的方式使用了催化剂。
我有 Root.pm，在该文件中我放置了多个 url 处理程序。
每个 url 有一个控制器是最佳实践还是应该考虑分组？
I just used catalyst for my first large project and I was left wondering if I used catalyst in the way it was meant to be used.
I have Root.pm and inside of that file I put multiple url handlers.
Is it a best practice to have one controller per url or should a grouping be considered?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
Catalyst 的优点之一是它的灵活性。您可以执行此操作，但它最适合您的应用程序。
如果您只支持少数几个 URL，那么将它们全部放在 Root.pm 中并没有本质上的错误。特别是如果没有深度，即 localhost:3000/foo 和 localhost:3000/bar
但是，一旦您开始拥有更长的 URL，例如 localhost:3000/foo/bar/baz/quux，其中 baz 和 quux 是 bar 的参数，您将看到分离出包含名为“bar”的操作（子）的 Foo.pm 的好处。 （那是在我们享受连锁操作的乐趣之前......）
尽管有办法 你可以实现与 Rails 风格路由表相当的功能，但通常认为这不是一个好主意。 没有路由表是 Catalyst 相对于其他框架的固有特性/优势。
催化剂权威指南。如果你没有这本书，你应该拥有。
One of the beauties of Catalyst is its flexibility. You can do this however it best suits your application.
If you only have a handful of URLs you support, then there's nothing intrinsically wrong with putting them all in Root.pm. Particularly if there's no depth, ie localhost:3000/foo and localhost:3000/bar
However, as soon as you start to have longer URLs such as localhost:3000/foo/bar/baz/quux where baz and quux are arguments to bar, you'll see the benefit of separating out a Foo.pm that contains an action (sub) called 'bar'. (And that's before we get into the joys of Chained Actions...)
Although there are ways that you can achieve the equivalent of a Rails style routing table, it's not generally considered to be a good idea. Not having a routes table is an intrinsic feature/benefit of Catalyst over other frameworks.
There's a good discussion of this on pages 13-14 of The Definitive Guide to Catalyst. If you don't have this book, you should.