[Chicago-talk] TT vs Mason

jason gessner jason at multiply.org
Thu Jun 15 14:34:38 PDT 2006

Andy Lester wrote:
> My feeling is that Mason is more given to componentization, but it's  
> also more of a pain to deal with, IMHO.
> TT is also more abstract in the sense that it's not tied to web pages  
> like Mason is.  Mason can do generic templating, but it's more of a  
> pain.
> Personally, I prefer the TT metaphor of "pass some data into this  
> template" rather than the Mason "here's a template with code in it."

You can make mason applications that behave like TT apps (andy's "pass 
some data into this template" style), but you aren't leveraging the 
platform for what it can do.

To me, the strength of mason is that it adds an OO metaphor for doing 
web apps.  Components can have attributes, and they all do/can "inherit" 
from parent components.  This generally takes the form of wrapping, 
instead of including, but i use this to execute common code, do 
authorization/authentication, form parameter massaging, etc.

Also, the platform has a lot of hooks for changing the way it operates 
without affecting your templates.


More information about the Chicago-talk mailing list