Well, I'm probably slitting my own throat here, but here goes.

My answer would be, for Reaction, a resounding "not yet". It has great potential, but it is a very long way from being ready for prime time, or really even ready for playing-with.

It is extremely cerebral - possibly over-abstracted but time will tell on that. Being overcerebral is forgivable if you've got great docs, featuring concrete examples - which the Reaction project certainly doesn't yet. In fact, most modules don't have POD at all, and those that do, are almost all doc stubs. I'm certain that it improve will eventually - but in the meantime, you'll be lost in a haze of terminology that is used inconsistently both in the scant docs and on #reaction.

I recently (October 2008) consulted on a project in which the project lead - a big Catalyst fan - was talked into using Reaction (by the Catalyst and Reaction projects founder's consulting group). It was a fairly straightforward web app, mostly CRUD but with some interesting summarization needed for reporting. The project was repeatedly delayed by the need to address the lack of documentation - longwinded lectures from the consultants being the only solution. The project came in late with reduced functionality after many long hours and frayed nerves. I don't know about you, but I want a framework to make my life easier, not worse.

So, overall, for production work, I think Reaction is just way too immature at the moment. You can always implement in Catalyst, and then moving to Reaction won't be very painful once it's ready.

If you insist on using Reaction - which I can't advise against strongly enough, for the time being - I'd suggest becoming a regular on #reaction and/or hiring the aforementioned consultants - it's unfortunately the only way to get the knowledge you'll desperately need to work with this complex system.

All that said, if you've got time to play with it, I'm sure they'd be eager to get docs patches.

In reply to Re: What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by clwolfe
in thread What's your reaction to "Reaction?" by locked_user sundialsvc4

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.