On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gabor Szabo <szab...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:10 AM, John Imison <i...@moe.co.uk> 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. >
In my opinion the nice thing when switching from CGI::Application to Catalyst was that the application naturally was split into multiple classes - while CGI::Application, out of the box, is just one package. At work we had a CGI::Application that was one package split into multiple files because it was so big. That was a nightmare. I am sure there was a better way to do that - but this is how things grow organically. -- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/