On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Dave Rolsky <auta...@urth.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009, J. Shirley wrote: > > Rather than Catalyst being geared towards TT, I would say Mason is geared >> towards being a framework :) >> > > Well, sort of. Mason is quite usable as a "pure" templating system. I use > Mason with Catalyst for all my new projects, and the framework parts of > Mason really don't matter to me. > Agreed, that's what I meant -- Mason has all the framework bits built in, which means a lot of Mason developers don't see the appeal of Catalyst (sadly). I think the best statement about Mason and Catalyst is that if you want to use View::Mason for the framework features, you are doing it wrong. Agreed? (I think Dave is safely the resident expert here on Mason so his opinion trumps certainly my own) > Except you also lose really useful non-framework features like > autohandlers, which are like TT's WRAPPER (but better, IMO). > > Of course that would be your opinion! ;) I actually thought MicroMason supported autohandlers (but not dhandlers) -- in that light, yes, just use Catalyst::View::Mason and disregard my recommendation. Sorry for the bad advice :) Flogging accepted by first person wielding sufficiently stiff bamboo rod. -J
_______________________________________________ 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/
