>> 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.
Use the parser new() parameter 'in_package' Extract from the mason manual: "Indicates the name of the package you wish your components to run in. This way different applications or virtual hosts can be run in different name spaces. Default is HTML::Mason::Commands." I simply decided to use subs only in *.pm files as libraries and so using allays the same name for the same functionality. Best Regards Christian - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
