[Catalyst] Best "form" library?

[Steve]

In order of importance, my considerations when making the decision about 
a year ago (no existing Cat apps at that point) were:

Adoption Rate:  I subscribed to mailing lists for FormFu and HFH, and 
noticed more people talking about HFH.
Moosiness:  Since Catalyst was making the move to Moose, and Moose 
seemed to have quite a following, this made HFH look like the better 
long-term solution
Documentation/Community support:  I personally thought HFH docs were 
somewhat better than FormFu, YMMV
YAML/config based approach:  While I now understand (thanks to previous 
posters on this thread) that there are multiple formats for the configs 
with FF, the idea of using a config file for form declaration did not 
appeal to me.

I agree with Stephen to a large degree on how to handle the decision.
Steve
steve at matsch.com

On 3/7/2011 3:21 PM, Stephen Clouse wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Ashley Pond V <apv at sedition.com 
> <mailto:apv at sedition.com>> wrote:
>
>     I use FormFu and have no problem with it and there is ultimately no
>     difference between doing things in config or in code, it's all code
>     and rendering in the end and HTML forms and form processing is just a
>     messy business no matter what you do. I find config files a very clean
>     way to reuse parts of forms and fieldsets and such. Doing that with
>     Roles or inheritance seems messier to me.
>
>
> This is actually why my current project likes HFH over FormFu.  We're 
> already thinking very heavily in terms of Moose, so HFH's design is a 
> logical extension.  Config files in FormFu ended up feeling like 
> another domain-specific language that everyone had to learn, and we 
> had enough of those already (templates, half-assed vendor-provided 
> interfaces to their awful systems, etc).
>
> Not saying that either way is good or bad.  I've used both HFH and 
> FormFu on different projects and liked both, and there is merit to how 
> FormFu does it in many other situations.  Haven't used Rose::HTML::* 
> personally but a glance at the docs looks comparable to HFH.
>
> To answer the OP, there is no "best", only "different".  The choice 
> you make is highly subjective and will come down to project 
> considerations.
>
>     I have been very curious about other approaches, including FormHandler
>     but a casual read of the docs gives no compelling reason to switch
>
>
> There isn't one.  They are all pretty even in functionality, they 
> simply do things differently.  Either you're using one already and 
> should keep using it, or you haven't picked (like OP) and should 
> evaluate them all carefully to see which is the best fit for your needs.
>
> The Perl mantra *is* TIMTOWTDI, after all.
>
> -- 
> Stephen Clouse <stephenclouse at gmail.com <mailto:stephenclouse at gmail.com>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List: Catalyst at lists.scsys.co.uk
> Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
> Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
> Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/