Ken Williams writes:
: and my favorite, Mason (http://www.masonhq.com/).
I think Mason is very similar to HTML::Embperl. Both are inline webapp
toolkits. One the other end of the spectrum are CGI::Application and
CGI.pm. Their perspective greatly reduces the amount of Perl in HTML files
and usually increases the amount of HTML in Perl files. Perl.com had a
recent article on CGI::Application.
All this aside, based on the excellent work that Raphael Manfredi has
done in creating Storable, Log::Agent, and Carp::Datum, I would reach
for his CGI::MxScreen module, which was in development for a few years
privately without hesitation. It offers all the features that one
would expect of a web app framework -- sessioning, templating (too bad
it isn't TT2 or HTML::Template but their own solution), and so forth.
And also, earlier someone mentioned that Template Toolkit was useful
for separating business and presentation logic. It also has the
advantage of being able to create output formats other than HTML.
I wrote up a post entitled "Web Application Frameworks and their
Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and
HTML::Template" at Perlmonks.org and got 56 +votes on it, so you might
want to check it out to get a somewhat objective lay of the land:
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=75645
