At Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:10:23 +0100, Stefan Cars wrote:
> I'm looking for some facts on why Mason would be better than Embperl. I have
> been using Embperl in alot of projects and think it works great. I don't see
> any reason at all to move to Mason but it would be interesting to know how
> things differs.
I've had a cursory look at some Mason stuff lately ("customising" RT..)
Mason seems to have more mindshare (or at least a louder userbase or
something). I've heard a few people say that Mason documentation is
much better than Embperl's (particularly with examples), but I haven't
actually read any of Mason's docs yet ;)
Technically, Mason is slower than Embperl (its pure perl). The Mason
error page is way better than Embperl's. I believe Mason has better
caching "scalability" (it dumps cached output to disk rather than
keeping it in memory). The Mason %INIT% block makes page globals a
little more manageable than they are in Embperl. I /really/ don't
like the Mason syntax, I find it too intrusive on both the perl and
HTML parts. I've also found the Embperl::Object "base" way of
templating makes a lot more sense than the usual include mechanisms
found in toolkits. "Extras" like %udat, %mdat, HTML escaping, etc are
manual addons with Mason. Afaik there is no scope for other syntaxes
in Mason (eg RT uses Template::Toolkit for its email templates), or
any of the funky Embperl HTML context-sensitive magic stuff (table
loops, etc).
Oops, that turned into why Embperl is better than Mason ;)
The Mason benefits (error handler, documentation, caching) wouldn't be
too hard add to Embperl -- the reverse isn't at all true. Personally,
I think Embperl is a much better choice for new projects.
--
- Gus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
