Re: www.masonhq.com back to work?

Can't speak for Jon but for me, Mason's filesystem-based routing is much more naturally modular, transparent, and expressive than parsing paths in a controller, certainly for organizing dynamic content and often for REST applications as well. URIs map to the directory tree in an obvious hierarchical manner and auto- and dhandlers live next to the content they augment – when you're not working on a directory, you can forget about it. The filesystem is the controller, views are in their natural places in the directory tree, and models are in business-object modules – isn't that the Mason Way?

On 11 Feb 2012, at 8:51 AM, Rolf Schaufelberger wrote:
> 
> Am 11.02.2012 um 13:04 schrieb Jonathan Swartz:
> 
>>> Nowadays, the action has moved on to other places, like the Catalyst list. 
>>> People still use Mason 1 and/or 2, but it's a much smaller part of their 
>>> development stack. This, BTW, describes me. I use Mason 1 solely for 
>>> templating on new projects. If I switch to Mason 2 that won't change.
>> 
>> Yes, sadly Dave is one of those that believe in a separate controller layer in modules. They are all wrong, but they comprise about 90% of the Perl community so what can you do :p
> 
> Could you explain your opinion about this "They are all wrong" a bit more ?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing 
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/