On 9/19/07, Marcello Romani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again on querylog vs. catalyst...
I've setup a minimal app to test the querylog stuff, but, I can't get
any results, i.e. the statistics obtained from querylog are always zero.
The attached file contains the entire app; here I show the
On 8/23/07, Matt Rosin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Catalyst makes it easy to build a site with lots of little modules of
content composing a single page - the actual content (words/images)
being scattered in static apache directories, the database, the
templates folders and the code. At some
On 8/23/07, Simon Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want sledgehammers, Bricolage and Krang are probably the beefiest
ones you can find :-)
www.bricolage.cc www.krangcms.com
Bricolage I was aware of, but krang is new to me.
They'll do all that you want (less perhaps a certain amount
On 8/23/07, John Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For while I've been thinking it would be nice to have a Cat-based CMS with
multiple features built on top of a platform. The platform can include basic
things like Authn, Authz, Sessions, a basic user schema and pre-built HTML.
The pre-built HTML
On 12/2/06, Sebastian Riedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
So I still believe in Catalyst, but my opinion is that The elegant
framework should first prove that it is really elegant.
That slogan was chosen at a different time, long ago, i don't think it
applies anymore.
On 11/16/06, Carl Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Essentially, according to his test, which doesn't take into account
ORM performance, Rails Django knock the socks of Catalyst.
snip
The first thing I noticed was that the content
On 11/16/06, Carl Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It shows that in one circumstance,
Catalyst is sadly slow. Let's fix that.
Matt has just pointed out that Cat's optimised for large applications
with lots of paths, and for flexible programming.
Only fix it if that doesn't compromise
On 11/16/06, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cory Watson wrote:
My original intent was to prod someone that is knowledgeable enough of
Catalyst's internals to criticize this benchmark's methods to create a
benchmark that is more friendly to Catalyst's strengths. We've
established
On 11/16/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Cory Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-16 14:40]:
I respectfully suggest that those who criticize his work should
use their energies to /improve/ his test rather than merely
dismissing it as worthless. Using his code as a base, couldn't
