On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Jonathan Swartz wrote: >> However, I do think that using some sort of controller is pretty crucial >> to having a maintainable webapp, and using Mason as your controller is not >> a good idea. > > I think the last bit (using Mason as your controller) is also subjective. > True, dhandlers and autohandlers and so on are underpowered compared with > today's frameworks, but they are also dead simple to use and work just fine > for some web sites.
It's all subjective! I know you disagree, but that's not going to stop me stating my opinion, and I'm not a fan of couching every statement in "in my opinion". If it wasn't my opinion, I wouldn't write it down with my name on the From header. That said, Catalyst clearly gives you more flexibility and power than Mason's dhandlers. I still use autohandlers all the time, but I never thought of them as a dispatching tool anyway. They're great for wrappers, but their dispatching power is somewhat limited. Finally, there's a lot to be gotten out of moving things that have nothing to do with HTML generation into the plain old Perl world of Catalyst controllers, which are just regular modules. You get things like real inheritance and Moose Roles, both of which are really useful in controller logic, as well as easier testability. -dave /*============================================================ http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless) ============================================================*/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
