Hi all,
Manfred Morgner wrote:
> yes, my believe is, that this is the point. There are programmers for
> each way. I prefere doing things on my own. For me, the Mason core is
> the great thing. But I really understand people who do otherwise, using
> frameworks on top of Mason or on top of something else.
>
> What I love on Mason most is, that it's open for both approaches. So
> even I, who never done this yet, am free to choose my way on each
> project but staying with the same foundation.
Thanks Manfred [and others] for your message(s)! Good to know that I'm
not alone! :-)
Actually, one important point that I hadn't brought up and I might as
well do so now is whether or not we would see an "end" to Mason in the
near future, thanks to options like Catalyst out there. ("end" = less
support for it, less updates, etc.) I know, I know...perhaps blasphemy
on the Mason mailing list :-) -- sorry, but I just thought I'd come out
and ask. Or, do the two really work together and having Catalyst out
there would actually do the opposite and increase the popularity of Mason?
(Honestly, this was one thing I thought about 2 years ago when I chose
Mason and Catalyst was already there; now that 2 years have passed, it
doesn't seem like Mason is going anywhere, so it's probably safer to say
that it isn't endangered.)
Tangent: I was happily using CVS for some time and was completely
oblivious to something called Subversion out there. Yes, I was happy
with CVS, but only later did I realize that it was being "phased out"
[not sure officially or unofficially] for SVN.
Ray
PS: That new Catalyst book that was mentioned earlier is "The
Definitive Guide to Catalyst: Writing Extensible, Scalable and
Maintainable Perl–Based Web Applications" by K. Diment and M. Trout? Or
is there another one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Mason-users mailing list
Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
