Re: Catalyst usage in the wild...

Hi,

Have done some CRUD with Maypole, but performance is not amazing, and read the documentation about Catalyst, and had the same question, about how long it would be actual, maintained, how devel, etc... So it's nice to see that there're more people on the same position that I'm. And of course, great to see comments from the authors!

I was thinking about using Catalyst for the refactoring of a complex internal webapp. It'll be a long timing task, it's Perl+C, but the person who wrote it, was learning Perl on the way, strange style and don't use the nifty things you would expect...

Regards,

|fire| at irc.freenode.net

I like merlyn's disclaimer

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Catalyst usage in the wild... by waswas-fng (Curate) on Jul 11, 2005 at 17:37 UTC
From what I have seen so far, Catalyst seems to serve up pages very quickly vs Maypole (in my converted apps about a 6 or 7 fold speedup). Good to know I was not alone in my worries... -Waswas	[reply]
Re^3: Catalyst usage in the wild... by sri (Vicar) on Jul 11, 2005 at 17:50 UTC
We've spent a huge amount of time optimizing the dispatcher, so it should be much faster (and especially more versatile) than Maypole and Ruby-on-Rails.	[reply]