[Van-pm] January van.pm meeting

[James.Q.L]

--- Jesse Sherlock <jessesherlock at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have tried both and have to say that i really appreciate the extras
> that catalyst brings. CGI::Application is really only half the
> framework that catalyst is, not in terms of quality, just in terms of
> scope, that can either be good or bad.
> 
> For rapid application development catalyst wins hands down, it does
> however bring alot of behind the scenes magic to the table, that means
> it's much more complex (CGI::Application without any plugins is very
> very simple) and slower as well.
> 
> They really are different solutions for different problems, if you
> need a fast, lightweight framework because you have huge amounts of
> traffic then cgi::application or no framework at all are your best
> choice. If this isn't the case then it's Catalyst all the way.

thanks for the comments on both. It sounds very reasonable. I am not a web developer. but recently
our development team just started to experimenting Perl for few small projects. I have mentioned
C::A and Catalyst to them and your comments maybe of help to them for choosing a suitable
framework.

For some reason, I personally don't like those do-it-all-for-you framework and want to have
freedom and control to what I am doing, maybe for learning purpose?. Therefor I am bit leaning
torward C::A.

James.
 
> -JS
> 
> On 1/27/06, James.Q.L <shijialeee at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > catalyst looks really HOT! especially the discusstion on mailing list.
> >
> > I am wondering if anyone here tried CGI::Application and Catalyst. It looks like
> CGI::Application
> > doesn't offer much feature except a simple framework to have many developers work together
> easily.
> > I am trying to learn CGI::Application and hope it is worth the time comparing to learning
> > Catalyst.
> >
> > James.
> >
> > --- Alex Pavlovic <alex.pavlovic at taskforce-1.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Luke Closs wrote:
> > > >>Catalyst is already passe.  Jifty is what all the cool kids are using
> > > >>now (it's true - I asked them).
> > >
> > > Jifty is tied to a specific templating system, if you want to use for example
> > > TT, there is lot of hacking to be done to make this work. Even worse it uses
> > > HTML::Mason which in my opinion is horrible way to do your presentation. But
> > > I guess if you are looking for something quick and dirty, then this might be
> > > down your alley.
> > >
> > > Not sure If I fully could understand you why is Catalyst passe ? Catalyst
> > > development has been going strong and steady for quite some time, go onto
> > > mailing lists or irc channel. It's far more flexible in my opinion then
> > > jifty. It's not tied into anything specific. It comes with variety of
> > > plugins, models and views to help you get things done in sensible manner. I
> > > recently completed ajax based web application with catalyst using models I
> > > wrote for it, and I am glad it was done in catalyst. Flow control / dispatch,
> > > auth with acls, sessions were some of the things that were a breeze.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vancouver-pm mailing list
> > Vancouver-pm at pm.org
> > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/vancouver-pm
> >
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com