That was really interesting to look at. OpenInteract is really impressive. I guess there is always a cost to having a big
do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew my head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more than what CGI::Application offers out of the box, but it may well end up being worthwhile to just extend rather than convert. I really appreciate the simple philosophy that HTML::Template and CGI::Application follow.
One question, how do you judge that OpenInteract is more established? Is does look like it is actively developed, but I never heard of it before, and I couldn't find much indication of how popular it is.
Thanks,
Eric
At 09:23 AM 2003-07-23, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> I'm curious as to why the combination of CGI::Application and Dave> HTML::Template hasn't taken off ... CGI::Application seems to allow a Dave> software developer to create an entire CGI app that can be stored and Dave> distributed as a module on CPAN, but only a couple such app/modules Dave> have been so added.
Maybe because it competes with OpenInteract, which is far more established.
-- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Lead Programmer D.M. Contact Management 250.383.0836
