Alright, I am going to put in my 2 cents. Mostly because I am new at this and think that I have a point of view. Which probably isn't true.
I start doing this 8 months ago. I used regular CGI.pm, then I saw the write-up on perl.com and decided to give it a go. I had tried Mason, it did not go well. However CGI::Application installed without a glich, low dependencies, no reconfig for Apache, and almost no re-write of what I had, but now I could distribute to my 20 and growing customer dirs with instance scripts and maint. was no longer a hassel. Made old way look klunkidy. Now I am on my 3rd generation. CGI::Application w/ HTML:Template, now this is the way it awt to be. If you want to know why you should use something like CGI::Application, read page 2 & 3 of this paper: http://www.objectmatter.com/vbsf/docs/maptool/ormapping.html On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Terrence Brannon wrote: > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
