Mailing List Archive

On 12 Dec 2008, at 14:49, Enno van Amerongen wrote:

> I'm currently in the process of selecting an MVC framework for a
> rather larger site that needs to be re-factored. I've looked at
> several frameworks, but right now Catamoose seems the most promising.
> There is just one major concern, is the current Moose port of
> Catalyst (5.8000_04) already production ready, or are there still
> big parts on the todo list?
>
> So, in essence, would you advice me to already start using
> Catamoose, or not?

Catalyst 5.80 (aka Catamoose) is getting more ready each day, but I
wouldn't suggest using it in a production environment _just yet_. I
am, however, using it to do all of my development with, and it's not
too far off.

Catalyst 5.70 is perfectly useable / stable, and any app made which
uses 5.70 should work fine under 5.80 once it is released.

What is specifically pushing you to want to use 5.80 over 5.70?

Cheers
t0m


_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev@lists.scsys.co.uk
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

Tomas Doran wrote:
>
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 14:49, Enno van Amerongen wrote:
>
>> I'm currently in the process of selecting an MVC framework for a
>> rather larger site that needs to be re-factored. I've looked at
>> several frameworks, but right now Catamoose seems the most promising.
>> There is just one major concern, is the current Moose port of
>> Catalyst (5.8000_04) already production ready, or are there still big
>> parts on the todo list?
>>
>> So, in essence, would you advice me to already start using Catamoose,
>> or not?
>
> Catalyst 5.80 (aka Catamoose) is getting more ready each day, but I
> wouldn't suggest using it in a production environment _just yet_. I
> am, however, using it to do all of my development with, and it's not
> too far off.
>
> Catalyst 5.70 is perfectly useable / stable, and any app made which
> uses 5.70 should work fine under 5.80 once it is released.
>
> What is specifically pushing you to want to use 5.80 over 5.70?
>
> Cheers
> t0m
Thanks for the reply, Tom.

I'm looking at 5.8, as we're looking into using Moose to help build all
the needed classes. I'm guessing that Catamoose in combination with
Moose classes would have a smaller memory footprint and maybe have
better performance as well.

Gotta admit that this is guesswork right now though.

Enno


_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev@lists.scsys.co.uk
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

On 15 Dec 2008, at 10:59, Enno van Amerongen wrote:
> I'm looking at 5.8, as we're looking into using Moose to help build
> all the needed classes. I'm guessing that Catamoose in combination
> with Moose classes would have a smaller memory footprint and maybe
> have better performance as well.

If anything, 5.80 will have a slightly higher memory footprint, as
you have a meta-instance for every class. That is not, however, a lot
of classes, so it's not particularly significant.

The main performance gain to be had in 5.80 is the use of Class::C3
for redispatch, rather than NEXT, but you can do this already with
the currently released Catalyst.

Also note that Catalyst best practices say you should put _as much_
of your code as possible into the application model (so that
controllers are just shuffling parameters and templates, and
templates are just iterating over data), and that you should build
your model separate to Catalyst (so that you can use it externally),
and there is absolutely nothing stopping you using Moose here..

Hope this helps

Cheers
t0m


_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev@lists.scsys.co.uk
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

Excellent, thanks again for your answers!

Enno

Tomas Doran wrote:
>
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 10:59, Enno van Amerongen wrote:
>> I'm looking at 5.8, as we're looking into using Moose to help build
>> all the needed classes. I'm guessing that Catamoose in combination
>> with Moose classes would have a smaller memory footprint and maybe
>> have better performance as well.
>
> If anything, 5.80 will have a slightly higher memory footprint, as you
> have a meta-instance for every class. That is not, however, a lot of
> classes, so it's not particularly significant.
>
> The main performance gain to be had in 5.80 is the use of Class::C3
> for redispatch, rather than NEXT, but you can do this already with the
> currently released Catalyst.
>
> Also note that Catalyst best practices say you should put _as much_ of
> your code as possible into the application model (so that controllers
> are just shuffling parameters and templates, and templates are just
> iterating over data), and that you should build your model separate to
> Catalyst (so that you can use it externally), and there is absolutely
> nothing stopping you using Moose here..
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Cheers
> t0m
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Catalyst-dev mailing list
> Catalyst-dev@lists.scsys.co.uk
> http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev



_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev@lists.scsys.co.uk
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev