Re^2: Catalyst usage in the wild...

in reply to Re: Catalyst usage in the wild...
in thread Catalyst usage in the wild...

Sorry I did not mean to group CGI::App with the CRUD comment. My problems with CGI::App are that I tend to feel like I need to recreate the wheel every CGI::App app I create. It seems to be so lightweight that you have to build up a ton of the inner workings that make sense for the web framework to provide. After I am done -- I am left feeling as though I spent half my time writing code to make the framework, you know, work. I get the icky feeling every-time I build around CGI::App that I could have done the same thing quickly just building a quick dispatcher on my own. Catalyst seems to add much more groundwork, but at the same time I can overload and change its core behavior pretty quickly without much hassle.

-Waswas

Comment on Re^2: Catalyst usage in the wild...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Catalyst usage in the wild... by weierophinney (Pilgrim) on Jul 12, 2005 at 15:47 UTC
Your comments seem very much in line with Perrin's analysis in his slide presentation: CGI::App is suited for those who want high flexibility so they have control over their site. The syntax and methods are both flexible and extremely simple -- making it both easy to KISS, as well as to overdevelop ;-) My personal experience is that I develop a framework for each site I work on, and wrap utility methods/common functionality into a CGI::App superclass. The application framework -- cgiapp -- lets me choose what needs to be present, and what doesn't need to be. Every site is a little different, and I don't like to have more functionality in the application than is necessary. As an example, I might want a class that simply loads template content into a sitewide template. I have one run mode, and setup a default page if none is passed. Done. Another site might consist of several applications. The body content needs to go into the sitewide template, and I need breadcrumbs to the application. These items go into the superclass, and the individual application classes provide hinting so the superclass can do its job at the end. I appreciate larger frameworks -- they're great for prototyping more complex applications -- but in the end I've found that a lighter-weight framework like CGI::App suits my personal needs as a developer, because it allows me to build frameworks tailored for the sites I'm developing. It sounds like Catalyst more closely suits your needs, however, and that's what you need to think about. If you're worried about the longevity of the project, you can always step up as a developer... ;-)	[reply]
Re^4: Catalyst usage in the wild... by waswas-fng (Curate) on Jul 12, 2005 at 16:17 UTC
Thanks for the feedback, I see why you prefer CGI::App.. As for stepping up as a developer -- I wish I could, alas because of my current employment I am not sure that I could release copyright or hand out reproduction rights. I am looking into it. -Waswas	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom