On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> Given that our approach doesn't get to use some of the major parts of
>> a framework (authentication, model), and given that the view logic is
>> not likely to require much of a rewrite between 1.3 and 2.0, does
>> m
Chris Travers wrote:
> Given that our approach doesn't get to use some of the major parts of
> a framework (authentication, model), and given that the view logic is
> not likely to require much of a rewrite between 1.3 and 2.0, does
> moving to a pre-existing framework simplify or complicate our l
Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
>> Just to note what we get from being close to the db and letting it do
>> our authentication for us:
>
> Use Catalyst. It lets you do what you want. It only steps in where you need
> it.
+1
And the user community feels like the PostgreSQL and LedgerSMB do.
> Catalyst h
YES
Pretty much every distro has ready-made tools for turning CPAN distributions
into native packages, this might eliminate a lot of the app packaging burden.
-Adam
--Original Message--
From: Chris Travers
To: Development discussion for LedgerSMB
ReplyTo: Development discussion for L
What do folks think about moving to CPAN as a distribution mechanism
for 2.0 and perhaps only seeing Sourceforge as for bundle
distributions?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David A. Bandel wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 13:56, Luke wrote:
>
>>
>> Can the codebase be moved to PHP while you're at it?;-) (A guy can dream,
>> even if unrealistically)
>>
>
> I would hope this would never happen. I have strings of horror
> stories relat
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 13:56, Luke wrote:
>
> Can the codebase be moved to PHP while you're at it?;-) (A guy can dream,
> even if unrealistically)
>
I would hope this would never happen. I have strings of horror
stories related to PHP and do not and will not ever install this
security disaster
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:37 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
>
>> Use Catalyst. It lets you do what you want. It only steps in where you need
>> it.
>
> I'm not so sure about that recommendation. Having built some small
> projects with Catalyst, I found it fairly large and unwie
Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> Use Catalyst. It lets you do what you want. It only steps in where you need
> it.
I'm not so sure about that recommendation. Having built some small
projects with Catalyst, I found it fairly large and unwieldy, quite
demanding of prerequisites and in a frustrating state
> Just to note what we get from being close to the db and letting it do
> our authentication for us:
Use Catalyst. It lets you do what you want. It only steps in where you need
it.
Catalyst handles M, V, and C as pluggable parts. You can even write your own
model layer, though most people want
10 matches
Mail list logo
