following Mark Stosberg's email about PSGI, I decided to poke around a bit more, and landed up with Dancer. Color me very impressed.
Seriously, I have seldom experienced such easy *everything*. Almost instant installation via 'sudo cpan Dancer', a simple 'dancer -a myapp', and I had a working, nice looking application framework [*] with nice URIs and ev'ryting. So, my question is thus -- how is Dancer different from CGI::App, and why should I use the latter instead of the former? I asked this not lightly because I have many years of experience invested in C::A, but Dancer truly shows how apps should be. [*] can something so simple to setup and run be actually called a framework? -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science ======================================================================= ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
