What I did I did of need, and publishing it was encouraged by what Ovid and BrowserUk wrote on simple Modules, together with the recent perl vs. PHP thread.

The module adresses nothing but turning a glove inside out - HTML containing perl into perl containing HTML, stuff that into an anonymous sub and make that available in various ways (OO, functional, AUTOLOAD) in whatever the right namespace is, and done. Nothing else. Extra functionality must not be added. It should remain simple but be well documented and tested, have its assumptions and conventions addressed and its limitations outlined.

I'm trying to incite a simple and concise implementation of the core of MVC for the web, barebone, without too much features. Splitting up CGI, for that matter. And I did start with one aspect of it - views with embedded perl, usable for

• just printing
• printing with simple variable interpolation
• all other stuff that perl does
• re-compiling upon changes of the source via timestamp checks

(Next could come DOM parsing or XML generation and such. But at which stage this should happen is not clear.)

Again, I don't want to reinvent the wheel but get a wheel without a car around just in case I want a nifty chopper.

A controller package should be the same. CGI::Prototyped is close to what I seek, but so is CGI::Application. All that's view related should be a stub in the module, and done. But the "how" - the interface - must be broadly discussed and done in the most standard perl way; how the controller interacts with model and view parts; and the assumptions each part has of the other's behaviour. There were some discussions about traits here; prototypes.. hmm.

I don't know about the history of the various toolkits, but I think if were that discussed, we would not have (x+1) different templating systems or MVC engines, but the MVC basics implemented in a simple and standard way.
Something like DBI for the web.

That's why I RFC'ed in the first place. I am looking for some "generic" approach and wanted to check the resonance.

<p style="rant=on; display=volatile">
Much effort was invested by many people in their modules, which are now seasoned (which isn't the same as mature), and they appearently didn't come together to agree upon their dream's commons, and now I'm blamed for coming late doing something similar out of a fix?

I don't care about my ($module) being accepted, appraised, developed or downvoted. Heck, if my module is of no use, it will simply vanish and no harm done, or been replaced by a better one. After all, 360+ lines of code and something learned.

But I'm really pissed off not because some PHP apologists claim that "there ain't such thing as PHP in perl", but by the fact that because each of them toolkit people defend their ideas as best, the former are damned right.
</p>

--shmem

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}