At 01:28 PM 10/17/01, Ilya Martynov wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:07:47 -0500 (CDT), Dave Rolsky
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>DR> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> >> I would venture to say that some of the mod_perl-only toolkits have some
> >> cases of being better designed than ours, but they are mostly mod_perl
> >> only. In fact, I don't know if I know any other toolkits than ours that
> >> are not mod_perl only of the ones that were advertised on the list.
>
>DR> I don't know if Mason counts as a full toolkit (its not really an app
>DR> server) but you can certainly run Mason as a vanilla CGI, and if you can
>DR> do that I'm sure you can run it in FastCGI and whatnot.
>
>Moreover I have seen it being used in command line tool which
>generates static HTML pages from a set of templates.
Well so is Template Toolkit but it's still basically a content
management/template engine not really an application framework. It's
possible that Mason has applications written in Mason, just as you could
write applications in ActiveServerPage or Cold Fusion pages, but that
doesn't make ASP or Cold Fusion an Application Framework either. Or at
least not a balanced MVC one.
Open Interact, Smart Worker, and ours do not handle templating at all. We
integrate with other packages to do that sort of management. We have
frameworks that handle application logic in a fairly consistent way and
this is what is meant by app framework (as opposed to template framework).
Of course, I am not saying that the line isn't fuzzy especially if the
template engine is quite powerful (as is the case with Mason or AxKit). But
there is a line nonetheless, no??
Later,
Gunther
