The stupid question is the question not asked | |
PerlMonks |
Re: Catalyst usage in the wild...by weierophinney (Pilgrim) |
on Jul 12, 2005 at 11:51 UTC ( [id://474248]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
The first I heard of Catalyst was in the past few days on the CGI::Application mailing list. I haven't had much time to check it out yet, so I cannot really address many of your questions.
I do have some questions for you, however. Why to you lump CGI::App into those that you feel "are geared towards CRUD"? The reason I ask is that CRUD is not typically what I develop with CGI::App. The stuff I develop with CGI::App varies widely, but is typically of the landing page-search results-view individual variety, or data capture (vs full-blown CRUD). (A cursory glance at Catalyst indicates that it shares one important thing in common with CGI::App: a page is a method (cgiapp uses the terminology run mode). With this paradigm, your class indicates what the available run modes are, what to use if none is passed or an invalid one is specified, and you go from there.) Additionally, you indicate that "anything more complex [than CRUD] seems to start fighting the API". Could you explain what your experience is, and why you find this to be so? I've developed many complex applications with cgiapp, and your statement doesn't seem self-evident at all. I'm curious if it really applies to the other frameworks you list as well. From the buzz I've heard and my cursory glance through its docs, Catalyst sounds quite well-designed. However, the other frameworks you mention have been around for quite some time and have active developer communities; I'm curious to know what sorts of applications you have in mind that they would not be able to address. I'm wondering if it's more a matter of Catalyst more closely matching your personal coding style than the inability of the other frameworks.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|