A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hi
Don’t miss Class::InsideOut. It’s better than either of the
Sure - but since that module recommends [1] Object::InsideOut,
what can a beginner do but follow the advice :-))?
[1]
I am not a fan of inside-out objects in perl, because I have much old
code which uses old-style hash objects.
It's confusing to have two types (although technically usable).
We have been converting our hand-rolled Database API to DBIx::Class,
which uses Class::Accessor (actually an
Ben Hitz wrote:
We have been converting our hand-rolled Database API to DBIx::Class,
which uses Class::Accessor (actually an extension written for DBIC)
called Class:Accessor::Grouped and Class:C3 to dispatch.
I am just learning DBIx::Class, also with the intent of using it to
convert from a
Daniel Sterling wrote:
Hi Daniel
But, getting back to the original topic, I agree with Ricardo that,
since the name of the CGI::Application game is simplicity, adding any
class meta-programming to its Perl 5 core doesn't really make sense,
especially when speed and size are affected.
Ben Hitz wrote:
Hi Ben
I am not a fan of inside-out objects in perl, because I have much old
code which uses old-style hash objects.
It's confusing to have two types (although technically usable).
Your use of 'because' there is meaningless.
Before someone adopts inside-out objects, /all/
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Jesse Erlbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-20 04:50]:
I am a big fan of HTML::Template, which is why I put in there
in the first place. In spite of the fact that I have a strong
preference, I made it easy (nay, trivial) to swap in your own
templating system.
Your request
Robert Hicks wrote on 10/20/07 7:12 PM:
I have been reading stuff on Rose recently. It is getting a lot of good
press from other Perl developers as well. I may try it in a new project
someday.
RDBO++
--
Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# CGI::Application
On 10/19/07, Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's just like a scab I keep picking at, though, and I should STFU.
I wouldn't quite put it that way. But I've always felt that
HTML::Template is to TT as Email::Simple is to Mail::Message. (It's
documented, in not quite those terms,
Peter Karman wrote:
RDBO++
So here everybody is saying they like Rose better, and I'm learning DBIC :)
So, I'll ask, what do you think? How is Rose better than DBIC or vice versa?
The most comprehensive comparison I found is at
Daniel Sterling wrote on 10/20/07 9:26 PM:
Peter Karman wrote:
RDBO++
So here everybody is saying they like Rose better, and I'm learning DBIC :)
So, I'll ask, what do you think? How is Rose better than DBIC or vice
versa?
I think it comes down to aesthetics, really. By that I mean that
On 10/20/07, Peter Karman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it comes down to aesthetics, really. By that I mean that the RDBO API
design matched more closely the way I would do things if I were writing an
ORM.
I found I grokked the RDBO way more easily.
On that point I'll mention that I've
11 matches
Mail list logo