[Catalyst] OT: Use the CPAN,
Luke? (was: Catalyst install failure due to Mouse.pm on Debian Etch)
zzbbyy at gmail.com
Thu Nov 27 09:05:45 GMT 2008
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:55 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis at gmx.de> wrote:
> * Toby Corkindale <toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au> [2008-11-27 01:55]:
>> The problem is the dependency Mouse (0.11) fails its unit tests
> That's really the sole solid argument against a flamboyant
> use-the-CPAN attitude: you end up pulling in heaps of bloat
> because none of the stuff was written to form a coherent whole:
> every author uses their own favourite way of doing some common
> thing so you get four different OO frameworks of varying heft,
> two different YAML modules, every JSON module there is, etc.,
> all loaded into the same perl process. What a waste.
> Case in point, Mouse is essentially Moose Light. Since Catalyst
> itself is becoming Moose-based, is there *any* reason to use
> Mouse instead? I suppose if it automatically stubs itself into
> a Moose loader where Moose is available, that would be not *too*
> bad, but it's still a pointlessly added dependency.
There is also Squirrel
(http://search.cpan.org/~sartak/Mouse-0.11/lib/Squirrel.pm) - it loads
Mouse unless Moose is already loaded (just citing the Synopsis).
At the operating system level I've seen sometimes 'virtual packages'
that decouple the services from packages that provide those services.
So you can have a service 'sendmail' that actually is provided by the
This level of compatibility between libraries is rather exceptional -
I think that Moose and Mouse are the only examples so far, but maybe
it is time to start thinking about that. CatalystX::CRUD tries to
work with both RDBO and DBIC - the effect is a bit too heavyweight for
my liking, but it is a bold experiment.
More information about the Catalyst