WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
>> However, I do think that using some sort of controller is pretty crucial
>> to having a maintainable webapp, and using Mason as your controller is not
>> a good idea.
> I think the last bit (using Mason as your controller) is also subjective.
> True, dhandlers and autohandlers and so on are underpowered compared with
> today's frameworks, but they are also dead simple to use and work just fine
> for some web sites.
It's all subjective!
I know you disagree, but that's not going to stop me stating my opinion,
and I'm not a fan of couching every statement in "in my opinion". If it
wasn't my opinion, I wouldn't write it down with my name on the From
That said, Catalyst clearly gives you more flexibility and power than
Mason's dhandlers. I still use autohandlers all the time, but I never
thought of them as a dispatching tool anyway. They're great for wrappers,
but their dispatching power is somewhat limited.
Finally, there's a lot to be gotten out of moving things that have nothing
to do with HTML generation into the plain old Perl world of Catalyst
controllers, which are just regular modules. You get things like real
inheritance and Moose Roles, both of which are really useful in controller
logic, as well as easier testability.
http://VegGuide.orghttp://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless)