> So I installed and compared. I preferred the syntax of Mason, the > flexible way to build components, the caching ... it have to be > said here that I choose Mason ...
I agree, the caching is very good and one gets up and running in no time with Mason. However, I find it imposes too much of a coding style to the programmer : for example, all pages are evaluated inside the same package and thus one cannot define two "normal" subroutines with the same name in two different pages. -- << Tout n'y est pas parfait, mais on y honore certainement les jardiniers >> Dominique Quatravaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>