I like the idea of OO based modules and systems. Is that the main difference between TT and Mason? That is that Mason is OO based and TT is not? That in itself could be a good enough reason to go with one over the other. But support, documentation, and ease out weigh if its OO based or not.
------------------------------------------ Ali Mesdaq Security Researcher Websense Security Labs http://www.WebsenseSecurityLabs.com ------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Michael Reece [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:20 PM To: The elegant MVC web framework Subject: [BULK] - Re: [Catalyst] Template Engine you will find that most here use Template Toolkit, but i prefer HTML::Mason, because i can do really interesting things with an OO- based templating system. but embedding perl into HTML may not be what you mean by "promotes good practices" .. mason is pretty agnostic in that regard, but you can develop and enforce your own good practices. On Mar 13, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Mesdaq, Ali wrote: > I just wanted to get everyone's feedback on what they prefer as their > templating engine. I know there are a bunch of choices but wanted to > see what people think of certain ones. I am looking for something that > supports and promotes good practices and cutting edge techniques. > > ------------------------------------------ > Ali Mesdaq _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
