marcus at thefeed.no
Thu Oct 6 23:34:43 CEST 2005
On 10/6/05, Andreas Marienborg <omega at palle.net> wrote:
> The sellingpoints of mason has much to do with implicit template
> inheritance, which is "harder" to achieve in an as flexible way with
> TT/Catalyst. (I have never used mason with catalyst, so that part I
> cannot comment extensivly on). What I'm talking about is of course
> autohandlers, which you place in a directory, and then "wraps" each
> template below it automaticly, without the need to do anything. In TT/
> Cat this is achivable by using WRAPPER or POST/PRE_PROCESS, but not
> to the same flexibility, and not with the same powers of overriding
> within a template (to my knowledge atleast). The most profound of
> theese needs have been removed with the addidion of auto-actions in
> catalyst of course.
Having done a little development with Mason under Catalyst, I'd like to
mention that Catalyst seems to solve one of the more negative issues I've
had with Mason, namely the tendency to end up with lots of non-presentation
logic in mason <%init> blocks. Also, with Catalyst as a frontend, you get
more reusability since you can map more actions to the same template.
Autohandlers still work well for presentation, and I feel that's more
natural than using them from auth. All in all, Catalyst makes my Mason
development more pleasant.
Having said that, I'm also quite pleased with the TT, and it's my choice for
private projects at the moment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Catalyst