Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote: > On 13 December 2010 21:07, Octavian Rasnita wrote: >> From: "Toby Corkindale" >> ... >> True, but FormFu can also use Config::General code which is much clearer (or >> other config formats accepted by Config::Any). >> >> It would be OK i

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 13 December 2010 21:07, Octavian Rasnita wrote: > From: "Toby Corkindale" > > On 9 December 2010 19:24, Octavian Rasnita wrote: >>> Using Moose Roles for forms is awesome. >> >> I also agree with this idea, but the fact that the most used constraints, >> filters and validators should be also

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

From: "Toby Corkindale" On 9 December 2010 19:24, Octavian Rasnita wrote: >> Using Moose Roles for forms is awesome. > > I also agree with this idea, but the fact that the most used constraints, > filters and validators should be also manually specified using Perl code is > not so nice. > It w

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 9 December 2010 19:24, Octavian Rasnita wrote: >> Using Moose Roles for forms is awesome. > > I also agree with this idea, but the fact that the most used constraints, > filters and validators should be also manually specified using Perl code is > not so nice. > It would be nice to have a for

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 12/10/2010 01:33 PM, Erez Schatz wrote: On 9 December 2010 16:32, Sir Robert Burbridge wrote: Ideally, the web designers that don't know Perl at all should be able to change the design of the forms at least. Maybe I'm being naive, but what does the HFH form have to do with the design?

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 9 December 2010 16:32, Sir Robert Burbridge wrote: > Ideally, the web designers that don't know Perl at all should be able to > change the design of the forms at least. > > > Maybe I'm being naive, but what does the HFH form have to do with the > design?  If you give them meaningful ids and cl

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 12/09/2010 03:24 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote: From: "Toby Corkindale" On 7 December 2010 18:03, Octavian Rasnita wrote: From: "Toby Corkindale" On 1 December 2010 02:34, will trillich wrote: Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based o

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

From: "Toby Corkindale" > On 7 December 2010 18:03, Octavian Rasnita wrote: >> From: "Toby Corkindale" >> >>> On 1 December 2010 02:34, will trillich wrote: Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet? >>> >

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote: > (I do have some code that programmatically generates the form config > based on the object you're editting, although I use a precreated base > for it) Well - there is http://search.cpan.org/~gshank/HTML-FormHandler-Model-DBIC-0.14/lib/HTML

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 7 December 2010 18:03, Octavian Rasnita wrote: > From: "Toby Corkindale" > >> On 1 December 2010 02:34, will trillich wrote: >>> Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on >>> FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet? >> >> I'm running it, and have been ve

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

Of course you can load a fields config from a file, db or wathever here is a simple form example of formhandler with perl catalyst: in your User.pm controller: use HTML::FormHandler; sub fields { return [ display0 => { type => 'Display', html => 'Personal data',

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

From: "Toby Corkindale" > On 1 December 2010 02:34, will trillich wrote: >> Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on >> FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet? > > I'm running it, and have been very happy with it. > It's nice that you can put all your co

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 1 December 2010 02:34, will trillich wrote: > Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on > FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet? I'm running it, and have been very happy with it. It's nice that you can put all your common form elements into roles and th

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

I suppose my issues were not with HFH itself but rather the DBIC interface. I had some meh experience with it when I was writing a demo CRUD app (project was eventually dropped for external reasons). It was fine as far as the basic stuff went, but when I tried to extend it to some complicated fo

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Sir Robert Burbridge wrote: > To mitigate the awkwardness I felt > about the API, use a pure-module approach (every form is a separate > package/module, that inherits from a base form that's all rigged up the way > I want it, along with a few really helpful roles t

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

On 11/30/2010 10:34 AM, will trillich wrote: Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet? On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Shlomi Fish > wrote: I can recommend *against* HTML-FormHand

Re: [Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

Formhandler works like a charm, does many useful checks and you wont have any trouble with it. i have been using it for a while without any problem. As for the memory leaks, it can affect you when resources are limited or when you are running out of ram. (no idea if there are any leaks on formhandl

[Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet? On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote: > I can recommend *against* HTML-FormHandler. > > For my day job's Perl and Catalyst project, we initially decided to go