Mailing List Archive

On 02.08.2017 11:19, ?? 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").

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.


On Wed, Aug 2, 2017, at 05:42 PM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
> On 02.08.2017 11:19, ?? 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").
>
>

On 02.08.2017 11:49, ?? 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, ?? 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").
>>
>>

You can run Dancer on mod_perl using Plack. The Dancer documentation covers
it. Or there's Catalyst.

These frameworks are trying to be independent of the web server they run
on, so they don't tie in to mod_perl beyond taking advantage of the speed.
That doesn't stop you from mixing them with mod_perl handlers that work on
different phases of the request though, like authentication. But if you're
asking if there's a high-level framework that takes full advantage of the
mod_perl API, the answer is no.

- Perrin

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:49 AM, ?? <me@fenghe.org> 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.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017, at 05:42 PM, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
> > On 02.08.2017 11:19, ?? 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").
> >
> >
>