> From: Michael Peters > > While I agree that having a nice name is good for a framework, I'm > doubtful > about using it as the name of a perl module. C::A isn't really a framework > in > the sense that Maypole, Catalyst, Jifty, C::A::F, etc are. >
Hi Michael But isn't C::A more than just a module? It's even compared to Catalyst on the wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/cgi-bin/cgi-app/index.cgi?CatalystCompared Although, as it comes, it may not be as big as Catalyst but it extends via plugins just as Catalyst does. We can use whatever templating solution we wish, and any ORM if we desire. I don't see C::A being too far behind the higher profile alternatives. A question on this thread basically asked if C::A is to help us get our job done, or whether it is designed to compete with Catalyst, Ruby on Rails et al. Well, I use C::A for myself - i.e. to get the job done, and I prefer using it more than any other web dev tool/framework/module (or however you want to classify it). But as a freelancer, I also have to win the job I want to get done. First, I have fess up to using Perl - which is often seen as Web .01 by the customer. Then I say I use CGI::Appication, and "CGI" has a bad ring to many customers' ears, as people have noted. If I can start chucking in words like MVC, Ajax, ORM etc and throw out words like CGI, then my coding job won't change, but my sales job will be a lot easier! Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
