I watch the Perl job boards quite closely and one cannot ignore
the fact that more and more jobs are looking at Mason as their
web deployment system. Also, O'Reilly has a book coming out on
Mason.
Mason has the advantage of being a one-stop solution for many
aspects of web app development:
* constant look-and-feel via the AutoHandler page
* sessioning
* caching with expiry based on time, Perl expression. the cache
also has
busy locks to keep many processes from writing the same cache key
* Templating - I personally hate inline templating which mixes Perl and
HTML... nothing is unit-testable this way. But it has templating also
* error handling - the DHandler page can pop up when errors occur
Now, it is clear that HTML::Template does one thing and does it
well and it is clear that one would have to piece together a
complete system with a number of other things - Apache::SessionX,
CGI::Application.
But what is missing from this strap-together approach? What is
better about it? I know for one that constant look-and-feel might
be better left to an HTML design tool (such as Dreamweaver) when
taking the HTML::Template route.
I would appreciate any input based on complete, real-world
projects into how you feel about the completeness of Mason versus
the orthogonal/synthetic approach based on
HTML::Template/CGI::Application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
