[Catalyst] Catalyst Documentation

[Thomas Hartman]

"Mason seems to require custom systems in place, and iirc from when I
looked into mason, a long time ago, also requires mod_perl, a problem
in a shared hosting environment. "

When I tried catalyst on a shared environment, it croaked in
dependency hell. Have things improved any?

I'm gearing up for doing a web site on a paravirtualized server, just
trying to decide between uml and xen...

thomas.

2006/6/1, Kieren Diment <diment at gmail.com>:
> Apologies for the arrogance :)
>
> I think that the point I was making was that Mason seems to require custom
> systems in place, and iirc from when I looked into mason, a long time ago,
> also requires mod_perl, a problem in a shared hosting environment.  Perin
> expressed this much more clearly than me, clearly because he has significant
> experience with Mason, which I do not.
>
> Technology goes through iterations - as in the progression from mechanical
> pianos, to wax cylinders to discs and so on.  Mason is an excellent example
> of high quality stuff from the previous iteration of web development
> methodology.  Because of my circumstances I wouldn't be able to be involved
> in serious web development without something like catalyst to take out the
> repetetive strain.
>
> As mentioned previously, the catalyst documentaton:
>
> svn co
> http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/Catalyst/branches/Catalyst-docs
> currently in the docs branch of the svn repos is essential reading.
>
> svn co
> http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/Catalyst/branches/Catalyst-docs
>
> On 01/06/06, Paul Wallingford <paul at cybergestalt.net> wrote:
> > Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 07:47 +1000, Kieren Diment wrote:
> > >
> > >> Mason is a templating system with a few application-development type
> > >> features included. Catalyst is a full blown application development
> > >> environment.  Mason makes a serviceable Catalyst View, although I
> > >> perfer Template Toolkit for a couple of reasons.
> > >
> > > I think you're exaggerating the differences here.  Although they go
> > > about it in totally different ways, Mason and Catalyst offer very
> > > similar functionality.  For example:
> > >
> > > - Flexible ways to map URIs to code.
> > > - Uniform API for access to request data and passing parameters.
> > > - Abstraction of runtime environment so that mod_perl, CGI, and FastCGI
> > > all work the same.
> > > - Error handling with helpful debug screens.
> > > - Plugins for sessions and other extras.
> > >
> > > You could say that Mason has MORE ground to cover in the docs, since it
> > > actually includes a templating system and a cache, while Catalyst just
> > > provides glue code.  (The cache is provided by Cache::Cache, but is
> > > covered nicely in the Mason docs.)
> > >
> > > My point is not to belittle Catalyst, but rather to say that Mason is a
> > > good example of a complex Perl project with very readable docs, and it's
> > > worth looking at.  The quality of documentation was one of the things
> > > that set Mason apart from the very beginning, and I think it was a key
> > > reason for Mason's success.  It came with guides for developers and
> > > administrators and had a more professional feel to it than most of the
> > > other tools at that time.
> >
> > Thanks for the reply Perrin.  I am very familiar with Mason and have
> > built a lot of stuff that does what Catalyst does.  However, I am
> > looking for something to speed development - and a framework like
> > Catalyst just might do the trick.  Building custom systems each time
> > takes too long and I don't have time to build my own framework.
> > Catalyst *seems* to fit the bill and I want to evaluate it, but the
> > documentation seems lacking.  Maybe I am just spoiled with Mason.
> >
> > That said, obviously I feel that Catalyst has a lot to offer, otherwise
> > I would not even consider wasting valuable time evaluating it (and there
> > are a lot of other frameworks that I have discounted right off the bat).
> >   This says a lot about my opinion of Catalyst.  Plus a lot of people
> > use Catalyst and Mason together, which is encouraging.
> >
> > I was a bit turned off by the arrogant reply by Kieren, however.  I just
> > wanted a little guidance, not some overblown sales pitch.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Paul Wallingford
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Catalyst mailing list
> > Catalyst at lists.rawmode.org
> > http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Catalyst mailing list
> Catalyst at lists.rawmode.org
> http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
>
>
>