On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think if I go the Perl route, cgiapp just bumped Catalyst from > contention -- it just seems simpler to me.
I like cgiapp because of it's simplicity. I like the idea behind more elaborate frameworks like Catalyst. But, those things always seem to turn out the same way. They start out with "hey, all web apps perform the same pattern of processing" and turn into an incomprehensible overload of bloat due to "the devils in the details." The solution ends up looking worse than the cure to me. C::A looks like a better balance of extensibility through reusable modules and hooks at the expense of doing everything for everyone out of the box (which nothing can ever truly do anyway). You might consider Titanium,[1] which is based upon C::A. There was a flurry of discussion about it here. I haven't heard much since. Not sure if that means it's stable or didn't generate the intended interest. I didn't follow it just because I don't swing that way (larger, one-size-fits-all frameworks). [1] http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=703291 ##### 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/ ## ## ## ################################################################
