>Heh, I agree that it's much better to have URLs that read >really cleanly >like that, and that's how I write things when using Catalyst. > >Using Catalyst with Mason is fun, because you have two seperate >'inheritance' chains. In Catalyst, you map a URL to an action, >and pick >a mason component, and then Mason will have its own chain of >components >based on that. This means that you can layout your mason components >however it is easiest given the wrapping chain you want, and not worry >about how it maps to a URL.
Absolutely. I'm enjoying using catalyst and mason together. However sometimes catalyst seems a bit too heavy for what I need. Actually in this case I'm considering a move to catalyst, but I think the feature would still be useful. G ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
