Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Ron Savage
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]

Re: [cgiapp] Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Ben Hitz
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

Re: [cgiapp] Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Daniel Sterling
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

Re: [cgiapp] Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Ron Savage
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.

Re: [cgiapp] Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Ron Savage
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/

[cgiapp] Re: strategies for decoupling HTML::Template

2007-10-20 Thread Robert Hicks
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

Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Peter Karman
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

Re: [cgiapp] strategies for decoupling HTML::Template

2007-10-20 Thread Karen
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,

Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Daniel Sterling
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

Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Peter Karman
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

Re: [cgiapp] Re: Class::MOP? Really?

2007-10-20 Thread Timothy Appnel
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