[Catalyst] Best "form" library?

Octavian Rasnita orasnita at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 06:10:19 GMT 2011

From: "Steve" <steve at matsch.com>
> 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

If we would care only about how much discussion about a piece of software we 
find, we would use PHP, or Ruby, or Python, because they are more discussed 
than Perl these days. :-)
HTML::FormFu is pretty simple to use, so maybe that's why there are no very 
many discussions about it.

> Documentation/Community support:  I personally thought HFH docs were 
> somewhat better than FormFu, YMMV

Yes you may be right, but have you found something you didn't understand how 
to do and didn't like to ask it on HTML::FormFu mailing list?

> 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.

Who said that you need to use a config file for defining a form in H::FF?
You can entirely define it in the Perl code if you like, and even if you 
define a form in a config file, you are able to change that form with Perl 

The biggest difference is not that H::FH uses Moose and H::FF does not, 
because probably H::FF would also start using Moose.

The difference is that H::FH uses Moose-type attributes for defining the 
form fields, with specific H::FH properties, while H::FF defines the form 
fields as a simple Perl data structure with its specific properties.


More information about the Catalyst mailing list