Re: MP framework
André Warnier (tomcat) <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.mod-perl |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 02.08.2017 11:49, 风河 wrote: > We actually use both dancer and modperl. but dancer works separately, it > doesn't require modperl installed. > So I was asking if there is a framework for modperl which behaves as > something like dancer. This is a bit vague as a question, for anyone to provide an answer. What actual problem are you trying to solve ? or : What is the problem with your current solution / (separate) tools, which makes you try to find another one ? > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017, at 05:42 PM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote: >> On 02.08.2017 11:19, 风河 wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> currently we were developing the methods mostly as handlers. >>> is there a new popular framework for full stack development of modperl? >>> >> Yes, many. See here : >> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=perl+web+development+frameworks >> >> We (still) use Template::Toolkit, which many people would consider a bit >> old and not >> really "in fashion". But it works, and is simple to learn and use. >> Other frameworks can be said to be more modern, more elegant, more >> fashionable, etc.. >> But in my opinion, the more elegant and abstract a framework is, the >> longer it takes to >> really dominate it, the more difficult it is to figure out what really >> happens when you >> have a problem, and the less you are really "in control". >> So the choice is yours, depending on >> - where you are coming from >> - where you want to go >> - what kind of problems you have to solve >> - how deep you still need to go into controlling what Apache does >> - etc.. >> There is no "one size fits all", and it is very easy to get into endless >> on-line >> discussions about which is "the best". >> (Including with people who say that they are looking for "a framework", >> but really mean "a >> CMS system"). >> >>