[Catalyst] Best "form" library?
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
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