>> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:24:45 +0100, Cosimo Streppone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said:
> For example, I designed and maintained for years a web framework where > we allowed something like: > $table->add_row('this', 'that'); > $table->add_row($chart); > $table->set_cell_opt(1, 0, colspan=>2); > $doc->body->add($table); > $doc->body->add($tree); > We had many kind of html "widgets", from simple ones, like 'table', > to complex ones, like 'treeview' or 'multiselect', or charts. Yes. I did that too. It was keen in 1997, and the reason I was using those idioms was because e.g. HTML::Mason didn't exist then. (*koff* and in 1998 I was still certain enough of my own invincibility I wouldn't look around for the help) and now I have a pain in the butt. > You can still separate (almost) clearly your presentation from your > application logic, and your code is highly maintainable, at least > IMO. It's only maintainable for you. And once you've actually -maintained- it for 7 years, you'll find yourself hesitant to assert that much. Code senescence is real. Seriously. Every iota of infrastructure you can punt to some larger community's set of rules and conventions is a win. - Allen S. Rout _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/