[Catalyst] FormHandler -- pro or con?

Toby Corkindale toby at dryft.net
Thu Dec 9 01:44:33 GMT 2010

On 7 December 2010 18:03, Octavian Rasnita <orasnita at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Toby Corkindale" <toby at dryft.net>
>> On 1 December 2010 02:34, will trillich <will.trillich at serensoft.com> wrote:
>>> Anybody else *dissing* FormHandler? We've started developing based on
>>> FormHandler lately and haven't had troubles... yet?
>> I'm running it, and have been very happy with it.
>> It's nice that you can put all your common form elements into roles
>> and then combine them.
>> I'm familiar with Moose, so HFH's syntax came fairly naturally to me,
>> but I guess it could be confusing to others?
>> Performance is reasonable - and a lot faster compared to FormFu.
>> Cheers,
>> Toby
> Is there a way of making H::FH beeing more elegant?
> I mean, is there a way of doing something to not need using Perl code for creating the forms, but only using some configuration files like in H::FF's case?

I guess there is more than one way to do everything..
I didn't like having to write YAML for H:FF, since YAML is ugly, and
then one needed to take multiple YAML files and merge them a lot,
and.. ugh.
Using Moose Roles for forms is awesome.

But, that said, you could write your forms in some kind of DB or
config file and load them up, but you miss out on the best bits of HFH
that way.
(I do have some code that programmatically generates the form config
based on the object you're editting, although I use a precreated base
for it)


More information about the Catalyst mailing list