From: "Steve" <st...@matsch.com>
In order of importance, my considerations when making the decision about a
year ago (no existing Cat apps at that point) were:
Adoption Rate: I subscribed to mailing lists for FormFu and HFH, and
noticed more people talking about HFH.
Moosiness: Since Catalyst was making the move to Moose, and Moose seemed
to have quite a following, this made HFH look like the better long-term
solution
If we would care only about how much discussion about a piece of software we
find, we would use PHP, or Ruby, or Python, because they are more discussed
than Perl these days. :-)
HTML::FormFu is pretty simple to use, so maybe that's why there are no very
many discussions about it.
Documentation/Community support: I personally thought HFH docs were
somewhat better than FormFu, YMMV
Yes you may be right, but have you found something you didn't understand how
to do and didn't like to ask it on HTML::FormFu mailing list?
YAML/config based approach: While I now understand (thanks to previous
posters on this thread) that there are multiple formats for the configs
with FF, the idea of using a config file for form declaration did not
appeal to me.
Who said that you need to use a config file for defining a form in H::FF?
You can entirely define it in the Perl code if you like, and even if you
define a form in a config file, you are able to change that form with Perl
code.
The biggest difference is not that H::FH uses Moose and H::FF does not,
because probably H::FF would also start using Moose.
The difference is that H::FH uses Moose-type attributes for defining the
form fields, with specific H::FH properties, while H::FF defines the form
fields as a simple Perl data structure with its specific properties.
Octavian
_______________________________________________
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/
