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.
OpenInteract definitely does more for you. But it also has (IMO) a fairly sophisticated way to distribute standalone applications -- including data structures, initial data, security settings, templates and (oh yeah) the actual perl code -- and plug them into another OI server.
OI 1.x ties you to the Template Toolkit, but 2.x (a big improvement now in beta) allows you to use whatever templating engine you like. You lose a ton of functionality, but HTML::Template folks seem to like it that way :-)
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.
Randal's 'far more established' may be premature :-) Taking a strict time perspective: from Backpan it looks like CGI::Application was first released to CPAN in July 2000, while OI was first released in February 2001. (I'd thought it was October 2000, but it's funny the tricks your memory will play.)
As to other definitions of 'established' I haven't followed CGI::Application development to say either way. There have been more articles published on CGI::Application and it seems to have a larger userbase, partly because it's easier to get started with and wrap your head around everything it does. Classic trade-off :-)
Good luck!
Chris
-- Chris Winters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Building enterprise-capable snack solutions since 1988.
