P Kishor wrote: > So, my question is thus -- how is Dancer different from CGI::App, and > why should I use the latter instead of the former? I asked this not > lightly because I have many years of experience invested in C::A, but > Dancer truly shows how apps should be. >
I've taken a quick look at Dancer, haven't played with it yet. It certainly has some interesting things going on. I think when I play with the code I'll be aiming to pull some things into my cgi-app based superclass. I like the way cgi-app does things, I like the way Dancer simplifies some things. I like the statement from Mark (I think, correct me) that cgi-app is a good framework for creating frameworks. I'm building my own cgi-app based superclass for my software, I see Dancers simplicity will likely become a problem for the kinds of things I'm wanting to do, but that isn't to say that I can't incorporate some of the ideas into my superclass. Dancer recent came up on Bristol and Bath perl moungers (http://perl.bristolbath.org), Nigel mentioned a couple of other frameworks Mojo and Tatsumaki. I haven't looked at them yet, but if you are looking at Dancer, it's probably worth checking them out as well. Lyle ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################