Hi, On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Swartz <swa...@pobox.com> 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 ? > > Nic Wolff summarized this pretty well, but I'll give my spin. > > In Catalyst, URLs are handled by controller classes. A controller gathers > data from appropriate model(s), then constructs a hash of data and passes it > to a template to render the page. > > In theory the controller method and template are decoupled, so that you could > create multiple templates for a single controller method (one for browser, > one for mobile, etc.). > > In practice, there is almost always a one-to-one correspondence between > controller method and template, and the two *are* quite coupled. If you want > to figure out how a page is rendered, you have to look at both the controller > and view. If you want to change how the page is rendered in any meaningful > way, you have to modify both the controller and the view. So I find that with > Catalyst development I'm constantly having to look in, and edit, two places > at once. I also have more decisions to make about which code goes where.
+1! > In Mason, URLs are handled by components. A component gathers data from > appropriate model(s), then renders the page itself. You only have to look in > one place and modify things in one place. +1. This is what I love about Mason. My "controller" and "view" are a single unit. In Mason 1 we got a bit of too little separation and it could get messy really fast if you didn't make sure your logic was stashed away properly in business classes (aka, your "Model") but I do like View-driven web frameworks that call into the model to pull the required information. When I do Catalyst, my controllers are a glorified routing setup system to views. I like chained actions to perform preloading (over async protocols if available) of data I know I will need (some might call this premature optimization), or for authentication/authorization, but the rest is all View-driven. I'm not a fan of the component-as-a-object of Mason2, but maybe its because it hasn't *clicked* yet. I do like the fact that it is Plack-oriented. Bye, -- Pedro Melo @pedromelo http://www.simplicidade.org/ http://about.me/melo xmpp:m...@simplicidade.org mailto:m...@simplicidade.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
