On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:55 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Toby Corkindale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-27 01:55]: >> The problem is the dependency Mouse (0.11) fails its unit tests >> there. > > That's really the sole solid argument against a flamboyant > use-the-CPAN attitude: you end up pulling in heaps of bloat > because none of the stuff was written to form a coherent whole: > every author uses their own favourite way of doing some common > thing so you get four different OO frameworks of varying heft, > two different YAML modules, every JSON module there is, etc., > all loaded into the same perl process. What a waste. > > Case in point, Mouse is essentially Moose Light. Since Catalyst > itself is becoming Moose-based, is there *any* reason to use > Mouse instead? I suppose if it automatically stubs itself into > a Moose loader where Moose is available, that would be not *too* > bad, but it's still a pointlessly added dependency.
There is also Squirrel (http://search.cpan.org/~sartak/Mouse-0.11/lib/Squirrel.pm) - it loads Mouse unless Moose is already loaded (just citing the Synopsis). At the operating system level I've seen sometimes 'virtual packages' that decouple the services from packages that provide those services. So you can have a service 'sendmail' that actually is provided by the 'postfix' package. This level of compatibility between libraries is rather exceptional - I think that Moose and Mouse are the only examples so far, but maybe it is time to start thinking about that. CatalystX::CRUD tries to work with both RDBO and DBIC - the effect is a bit too heavyweight for my liking, but it is a bold experiment. -- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/
