[BULK] - Re: [Catalyst] Template Engine

[Mesdaq, Ali]

 I like the idea of OO based modules and systems. Is that the main
difference between TT and Mason? That is that Mason is OO based and TT
is not? That in itself could be a good enough reason to go with one over
the other. But support, documentation, and ease out weigh if its OO
based or not.


------------------------------------------
Ali Mesdaq
Security Researcher
Websense Security Labs
http://www.WebsenseSecurityLabs.com
------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Reece [mailto:mreece at vinq.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:20 PM
To: The elegant MVC web framework
Subject: [BULK] - Re: [Catalyst] Template Engine

you will find that most here use Template Toolkit, but i prefer
HTML::Mason, because i can do really interesting things with an OO-
based templating system.  but embedding perl into HTML may not be what
you mean by "promotes good practices" .. mason is pretty agnostic in
that regard, but you can develop and enforce your own good practices.

On Mar 13, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Mesdaq, Ali wrote:

> I just wanted to get everyone's feedback on what they prefer as their 
> templating engine. I know there are a bunch of choices but wanted to 
> see what people think of certain ones. I am looking for something that

> supports and promotes good practices and cutting edge techniques.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Ali Mesdaq



_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst at lists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/