Thanks John. From the point of view of the controller-model relationship, pattern #3 in here
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=915657 gives a nice example of creating a Catalyst model for wrapping a non-web package or schema. It explains the benefit of having a DB handle invisibly attached to the controller [I feel uncomfortable with it as a kind of magic:)] but I think the equivalent can be done in Dancer with Dancer::Plugin::DBIC http://advent.perldancer.org/2010/11 so I'm not really much clearer on the difference. Anyway, I'd like to know peoples' views on whether this is a healthy approach to developing maintainable web apps. Another interpretation of a micro framework is Peregrin's description of the difference between Catalyst and Dancer here which is more focussed on the potential complexity of the controller http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5080017/dancer-vs-catalyst-perl-web-frameworks Andrew On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:13 PM, John Ingram <[email protected]> wrote: > This is just my own understanding, but here it is: Let's first get on the > same page about web frameworks. To me, a web framework is basically giving > you everything you need to get started with a database-driven website or web > application. Everything, that is, between the webserver software and the > database software. And in many cases the framework itself includes a > webserver. This is true of Dancer (which I'm not saying is a full > framework) and Rails and most others, because the basics of a webserver are > pretty simple. > > So when I say "everything you need to get started," that's generally going > to include each of the MVC layers. Some code that handles the Model, some > code that handles the Controller, and some code that handles the View. > > Of course, there are lots of ways to deal with a database, and most of them > have nothing specific to do with web frameworks. In Perl, there's pure DBI, > there's DBIx::Class, there's Rose::DB::Object, and I'm sure many others. > There are also lots of ways to do templating. Template Toolkit, > HTML::Template, and many others. There are also websites and web > applications that are so simple that you don't even need those parts at all. > For those reasons and others, there is an appetite for the "micro web > framework." > > As far as I can tell, there's only one real requirement for a micro web > framework. And that is route handling. When certain types of requests > come in, how do we handle those requests? Different HTTP methods, > different URIs, different query parameters. How do we parse the arguments? > How do we handle error conditions? File uploads. Session data. Etc. > All of this is included in a full framework as well, as the Controller. And > they also contain code for the Model and View. But the micro-framework does > not. You might think of a micro framework as simply a controller framework. > > Anyway, that's my impression. I might be wrong. > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Andrew Solomon <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi John >> >> I've read this and I still don't really know what a micro web framework is >> >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6784007/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-micro-framework >> >> but my gut feeling is simply that for a micro framework, a large >> portion of functionality is acquired via plugins. >> >> Can you clarify the definition? >> >> Andrew >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:45 AM, John Ingram <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > While this is interesting, comparing Dancer with anything more than a >> > micro-framework is not really accurate. >> > >> > On Ruby, that's Sinatra, for one. Python has Bottle and Flask, perhaps >> > others. But to compare Dancer with either Django or Rails is something >> > that I don't quite understand. >> > >> > The fact that Dancer is a micro-framework, and not a full framework, is >> > why >> > I love it. I love Rose::DB::Object as n ORM, and Template Toolkit as a >> > view >> > layer. What I was missing was Dancer. Now I have what I need. >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM, [email protected] >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks for that Andrew. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Andrew Solomon >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I've been conducting a series of interviews of my students to >> >>> understand the motivation for learning Perl. This one I thought would >> >>> be of particular interest to the Dancer community as I've asked an >> >>> established Perl developer with a broad background in other languages >> >>> and technologies why he learnt Dancer >> >>> >> >>> http://blog.geekuni.com/2014/07/why-learn-perl-interview-3-savio.html >> >>> >> >>> Hope you find it interesting! >> >>> >> >>> cheers >> >>> >> >>> Andrew >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> dancer-users mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> dancer-users mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dancer-users mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> dancer-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > dancer-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users > _______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
