in reply to Catalyst, Jifty MVCs too "expensive"...feasible alternative?

I think you could solve the problems you're having with Jifty and Catalyst pretty quickly if you join their mailing lists and ask for help. (And, as was already pointed out, there is no reason at all you need to run the test server provided by Catalyst. It's entirely optional and for dev only.)

However, to address your larger question of whether there is something more lightweight, there are plenty of alternatives. If you already know how to call a templating tool and how to write data objects (with an ORM or not), all that's left is URL mapping and some error handling and glue code. You could write that from scratch and you wouldn't be reinventing anything very significant, provided your URL mapping needs are minimal.

Or you could use a lightweight tool like CGI::Application, which has the glue code you're likely to need already but is still pretty quick to get going on. It's a very easy learning curve.

  • Comment on Re: Catalyst, Jifty MVCs too "expensive"...feasible alternative?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Catalyst, Jifty MVCs too "expensive"...feasible alternative?
by stonecolddevin (Parson) on Oct 09, 2006 at 17:28 UTC

    Perhaps I'm in need of some more in depth MVC research, but what kind of URL mapping are you talking about?

    meh.
[reply]
      Mapping URLs to methods in your class. Catalyst has a lot of funtionality for this, as you'll see if you browse the docs. Not sure about Jifty. CGI::Application has code for using either query strings (/catalog/product.cgi?rm=show) or a more REST-like approach (/catalog/product/show).
[reply]

        I noticed Catalyst is pretty good to go as far as that goes. I'm thinking Catalyst is the way to go for me, Jifty seems a bit restricted. I could write a base framework for the small apps in C::A, then do all my big stuff with Catalyst. Thanks for the definition :-)

        meh.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom