Can't speak for Jon but for me, Mason's filesystem-based routing is much more naturally modular, transparent, and expressive than parsing paths in a controller, certainly for organizing dynamic content and often for REST applications as well. URIs map to the directory tree in an obvious hierarchical manner and auto- and dhandlers live next to the content they augment – when you're not working on a directory, you can forget about it. The filesystem is the controller, views are in their natural places in the directory tree, and models are in business-object modules – isn't that the Mason Way?
On 11 Feb 2012, at 8:51 AM, Rolf Schaufelberger wrote: > > Am 11.02.2012 um 13:04 schrieb Jonathan Swartz: > >>> Nowadays, the action has moved on to other places, like the Catalyst list. >>> People still use Mason 1 and/or 2, but it's a much smaller part of their >>> development stack. This, BTW, describes me. I use Mason 1 solely for >>> templating on new projects. If I switch to Mason 2 that won't change. >> >> Yes, sadly Dave is one of those that believe in a separate controller layer >> in modules. They are all wrong, but they comprise about 90% of the Perl >> community so what can you do :p > > Could you explain your opinion about this "They are all wrong" a bit more ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
