You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Dave Baker <da...@benefitslink.com> on 2003/07/23 17:34:06 UTC
Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection with either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
I'm curious as to why the combination of CGI::Application and
HTML::Template hasn't taken off ... CGI::Application seems to allow a
software developer to create an entire CGI app that can be stored and
distributed as a module on CPAN, but only a couple such app/modules
have been so added.
Especially since I think I read recently where the very popular
Template::Toolkit can be used by CGI::Application in lieu of
HTML::Template.
-----------------------------------
Dave Baker
Re: Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection with
either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
Posted by Chris Winters <ch...@cwinters.com>.
Dave Rolsky wrote:
> There's a fine book about it.
>
> www.masonbook.com
>
> Just an unbiased opinion ;)
Hey, I'd be happy to write a book about OpenInteract ;-)
Chris
--
Chris Winters (chris@cwinters.com)
Building enterprise-capable snack solutions since 1988.
Re: Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection with
either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
Posted by Dave Rolsky <au...@urth.org>.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Eric wrote:
> do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew my
> head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more than
There's a fine book about it.
www.masonbook.com
Just an unbiased opinion ;)
-dave
/*=======================
House Absolute Consulting
www.houseabsolute.com
=======================*/
Re: Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection with
either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
Posted by Chris Winters <ch...@cwinters.com>.
Eric wrote:
> That was really interesting to look at. OpenInteract is really
> impressive. I guess there is always a cost to having a big
> do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew
> my head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more
> than what CGI::Application offers out of the box, but it may well end up
> being worthwhile to just extend rather than convert. I really appreciate
> the simple philosophy that HTML::Template and CGI::Application follow.
OpenInteract definitely does more for you. But it also has (IMO) a
fairly sophisticated way to distribute standalone applications --
including data structures, initial data, security settings,
templates and (oh yeah) the actual perl code -- and plug them into
another OI server.
OI 1.x ties you to the Template Toolkit, but 2.x (a big improvement
now in beta) allows you to use whatever templating engine you like.
You lose a ton of functionality, but HTML::Template folks seem to
like it that way :-)
> One question, how do you judge that OpenInteract is more established? Is
> does look like it is actively developed, but I never heard of it before,
> and I couldn't find much indication of how popular it is.
Randal's 'far more established' may be premature :-) Taking a strict
time perspective: from Backpan it looks like CGI::Application was
first released to CPAN in July 2000, while OI was first released in
February 2001. (I'd thought it was October 2000, but it's funny the
tricks your memory will play.)
As to other definitions of 'established' I haven't followed
CGI::Application development to say either way. There have been more
articles published on CGI::Application and it seems to have a larger
userbase, partly because it's easier to get started with and wrap
your head around everything it does. Classic trade-off :-)
Good luck!
Chris
--
Chris Winters (chris@cwinters.com)
Building enterprise-capable snack solutions since 1988.
Re: Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection
with either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
Posted by Eric <ef...@kwinternet.com>.
Hi,
That was really interesting to look at. OpenInteract is really impressive.
I guess there is always a cost to having a big
do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew my
head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more than
what CGI::Application offers out of the box, but it may well end up being
worthwhile to just extend rather than convert. I really appreciate the
simple philosophy that HTML::Template and CGI::Application follow.
One question, how do you judge that OpenInteract is more established? Is
does look like it is actively developed, but I never heard of it before,
and I couldn't find much indication of how popular it is.
Thanks,
Eric
At 09:23 AM 2003-07-23, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Baker <da...@benefitslink.com> writes:
>
>Dave> I'm curious as to why the combination of CGI::Application and
>Dave> HTML::Template hasn't taken off ... CGI::Application seems to allow a
>Dave> software developer to create an entire CGI app that can be stored and
>Dave> distributed as a module on CPAN, but only a couple such app/modules
>Dave> have been so added.
>
>Maybe because it competes with OpenInteract, which is far more established.
>
>--
>Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
><me...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
>Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
>See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Lead Programmer
D.M. Contact Management
250.383.0836
RE: Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection with either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
Posted by Jesse Erlbaum <je...@erlbaum.net>.
Hey Randal --
> Maybe because it competes with OpenInteract, which is far
> more established.
I don't really think OI and CGI-App are in competition at all. OI
attempts to be a uber-framework, a la Mason -- or maybe more like
ColdFusion or WebObjects. CGI::Application just focuses on web
application state management.
CGI::Application doesn't try to bolt on anything else. The developer
can choose their favorite modules for templating system, database
interface, object persistence, session management, etc. CGI-App is
specifically made to allow developers to choose from the best available
CPAN libraries, rather than to pre-select for them.
You could probably use CGI::Application to implement part of
OpenInteract, but you wouldn't use one in lieu of the other. They're
not really comparable at all.
TTYL,
-Jesse-
--
Jesse Erlbaum
The Erlbaum Group
jesse@erlbaum.net
Phone: 212-684-6161
Fax: 212-684-6226
Re: Templating system opinions (CGI::Application in connection with either HTML::Template or Template::Toolkit)
Posted by "Randal L. Schwartz" <me...@stonehenge.com>.
>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Baker <da...@benefitslink.com> writes:
Dave> I'm curious as to why the combination of CGI::Application and
Dave> HTML::Template hasn't taken off ... CGI::Application seems to allow a
Dave> software developer to create an entire CGI app that can be stored and
Dave> distributed as a module on CPAN, but only a couple such app/modules
Dave> have been so added.
Maybe because it competes with OpenInteract, which is far more established.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<me...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!