Re: What's your reaction to "Reaction?"

I haven't used Reaction and I got the feeling the last I checked that I should not yet but I and a few others will answer Catalyst questions here (when I know the answers; the list is also quite good and responsive).

Using Catalyst (and DBIx::Class) in the last two days I ported the DB interaction (models/schema), login, splash, and a couple of forms of a legacy app. 80% of the time was spent on config settings and CSS. I expect to have almost the whole application ported by New Year's. All of it with tests (or so I say now but I've been keeping up pretty well) and much more stable than its prototype and doing things the old one couldn't like UTF-8 data and deployment with configuration changes instead of hard coded Perl changes per client.

For your first Catalyst project, that timeline is unrealistic. It has a learning curve; as does DBIC. But once you're in it it's freakishly pleasing how you can do things like an RSS/Atom feed in 5-10 lines of easy to read (in the context of the app and model) code. And how easily you can graft in legacy code and fix it when you have time. In an app I wrote a year ago I had a bunch of file handling embedded in controllers. I recently went back and broke it out into model classes and made it configurable (another strength of Catalyst; the configuration can come from several places in several formats and be easily overridden by location or whatever you please).

Catalyst can feel like an uphill battle at first but once you're sitting on a running app you'll be really glad you made the jog.

Comment on Re: What's your reaction to "Reaction?"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by SilasTheMonk (Chaplain) on Dec 17, 2008 at 08:21 UTC
It occurred to me that there ought to be a canonical way of answering questions like this. The two methods that occur to me are as follows: Look at the reviews on CPAN. The weakness here is that I cannot find a way of asking for modules doing something similar. Look at the Q&A on perlmonks which does cover some questions of this sort (though in a discursive way). How easy it would be to build lists of modules for a certain purpose (OO frameworks, CGI framework for example) based upon CPAN review ratings either in CPAN or perlmonks? I suppose one issue is that for most purposes there is a clear winner, but this is not the case for these two examples.	[reply]
Re^3: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by zby (Vicar) on Dec 17, 2008 at 09:54 UTC
This "lists of modules for certain purpose" idea is being realized at the p5p wiki. Update: There is also Task::Kensho a list of modules maintained by the Enlightened Perl organisation.	[reply]
Re^4: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by perigrin (Sexton) on Dec 18, 2008 at 22:24 UTC
I feel I should point out that Task::Kensho is not officially endorsed by the EPO. It is certainly appreciated by the board there, and I am a member of the EPO but when I wrote Task::Kensho I was not a member and it only reflects the biases I have garnered from my years as a Perl programmer. The EPO is slowly trying to form a working group to produce an official list to endorse. How accurate Task::Kensho is to that list I have no idea, I suspect it will be pretty close.	[reply]
Re^2: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Dec 17, 2008 at 14:19 UTC
Well, the good news is that I am not-at-all unfamiliar with Catalyst, but I am obviously trying to be as up-to-date as possible ... to whatever extent might be prudent ... specifically at this preliminary-review stage. This is the one, and only, point at which “the ship has not yet embarked.” There is no question in my mind that a high level framework must be used, and that it should be Catalyst. Nonetheless, I admit to being quite intrigued about what I see (and what I hear being said-about) Moose. The possibility of advantageously using mix-ins, and its relationship to Perl-6, and other reasonably “forward-thinking things,” ... well, now's the one and only very-best time to be considering this sort of thing, as all of us well know. Reaction (although it has been mentioned in-“print” for about a year now) does not yet seem to be accompanied by a complete and articulate description (in the form of cohesive and complete `perldoc`s) of just why it is so great. Nevertheless, “the brains behind it” are rather formidable. So, “I don't doubt it, but I don't see it (yet).” I am “window shopping.” Very quickly. Catalyst is already an established definite-yes. And right now is the one best time to be canvassing the others. Thanks to you Monks, one and all, for your (continuing) opinions on the matter.
Re^3: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by stonecolddevin (Parson) on Dec 18, 2008 at 20:40 UTC
You also can't forget that "very shiny" is awesome, but you can't let the up and coming new things get in the way of your work. If you're spending more time trying to keep up to date than getting code written, you should probably reconsider some practices :-) I find following something, say, an application, through from beginning to end is the only way to truly learn something. Then begin learning something new, etc. You can ALWAYS take time to rewrite something to do it the right way though. But remember, not always is new and shiny the right way immediately :-) meh.	[reply]