On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:10 AM, John Imison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/01/2011 10:29 PM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > >>> >>> Out of interest, does anyone use CGI::Application? What are the general >>> thoughts on that? >> >> As a dispatcher, it's fine. DBIC+TT+CGI::App is a framework :) >> > > Great. I'm glad to hear that some people on here are using it. I've been > using DBIC+TT+CGI::App for a little while and found the learning curve to be > small/fast and wanted to knock something up quickly. > > Most perl irc channels were recommending Catalyst, Dancer and Mojolicious as > the main frameworks and I was worried that there may have been something > wrong with CGI::App that I didn't know about. I guess the main difference > is the 3 above are actively being developed?
I have been using CGI::Applications for many years. IMHO the biggest problem with it is its name[1]. AFAIK it the development is not that active because the developers 1) do not want it to be a big framework like Catalyst 2) find that it has been mature for several years now Even though I do things happening on the mailing list here and there. I am now playing with Dancer because it is a new toy and it has a cooler name than CGI::Applications. regards Gabor http://szabgab.com/ [1] That was part of the reason for the repackaging as Titanium
