OK, I am relitively new to scripting with PERL and I am extremely new to web development with PERL and the modules or frameworks. So what I am trying to do is give you a new persons perspective.
I like CGI::Application so far, but it does sound bad, it sounds old. Anyone who hears CGI says why not PHP, why not JAVA, why not... my answer: because I dont want to learn another language to get the same thing accomplished. After browsing the internet for a while looking for a way to use perl to make a web application with username/password authentication, protected areas and the whole deal, I couldnt really determine which frame work to go with so I chose CGI::Application because it seemed a little more simple and I could add modules as needed. I am still not sure what differences there are between catalyst and cgi::application, however I have read that people progress from CGI -> cgi::application -> cgi::application with cgi::session -> catalyst (for the full framework) My suggestion would be to rename this to Web::Application and "market" it as a framework. Also explain what seperates it from the others in the intro. Hope I didnt step on anyones toes as I have got great support from this mailing list with my newbie questions... just thought I would add some insight where possible. Chico --- Dan Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Michael Peters > > > > While I agree that having a nice name is good for > a framework, I'm > > doubtful > > about using it as the name of a perl module. C::A > isn't really a framework > > in > > the sense that Maypole, Catalyst, Jifty, C::A::F, > etc are. > > > > Hi Michael > > But isn't C::A more than just a module? It's even > compared to Catalyst on > the wiki: > > http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/cgi-bin/cgi-app/index.cgi?CatalystCompared > > Although, as it comes, it may not be as big as > Catalyst but it extends via > plugins just as Catalyst does. We can use whatever > templating solution we > wish, and any ORM if we desire. I don't see C::A > being too far behind the > higher profile alternatives. > > A question on this thread basically asked if C::A is > to help us get our job > done, or whether it is designed to compete with > Catalyst, Ruby on Rails et > al. Well, I use C::A for myself - i.e. to get the > job done, and I prefer > using it more than any other web dev > tool/framework/module (or however you > want to classify it). > > But as a freelancer, I also have to win the job I > want to get done. First, I > have fess up to using Perl - which is often seen as > Web .01 by the customer. > Then I say I use CGI::Appication, and "CGI" has a > bad ring to many > customers' ears, as people have noted. If I can > start chucking in words like > MVC, Ajax, ORM etc and throw out words like CGI, > then my coding job won't > change, but my sales job will be a lot easier! > > Dan > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Web Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
