Recommendation for simple Web Frameworks
zzbbyy at gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 08:42:55 GMT 2011
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Gabor Szabo <szabgab at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:10 AM, John Imison <i at moe.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/01/2011 10:29 PM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>>>> Out of interest, does anyone use CGI::Application? What are the general
>>>> thoughts on that?
>>> As a dispatcher, it's fine. DBIC+TT+CGI::App is a framework :)
>> Great. I'm glad to hear that some people on here are using it. I've been
>> using DBIC+TT+CGI::App for a little while and found the learning curve to be
>> small/fast and wanted to knock something up quickly.
>> Most perl irc channels were recommending Catalyst, Dancer and Mojolicious as
>> the main frameworks and I was worried that there may have been something
>> wrong with CGI::App that I didn't know about. I guess the main difference
>> is the 3 above are actively being developed?
> I have been using CGI::Applications for many years. IMHO the biggest
> problem with
> it is its name. AFAIK it the development is not that active because
> the developers
> 1) do not want it to be a big framework like Catalyst
> 2) find that it has been mature for several years now
> Even though I do things happening on the mailing list here and there.
In my opinion the nice thing when switching from CGI::Application to
Catalyst was that the application naturally was split into multiple
classes - while CGI::Application, out of the box, is just one package.
At work we had a CGI::Application that was one package split into
multiple files because it was so big. That was a nightmare. I am
sure there was a better way to do that - but this is how things grow
More information about the london.pm