dancer web framework

Skip to first unread message

Terrence Brannon

Nov 12, 2009, 10:31:06 AM11/12/09
to squatting-framework
I searched the archives and it looks like Dancer <http://> has not been discussed here previously.

It looks <>
heavier than Squatting but lighter than Mojo but very similar in
design to both.

One thing I dont like is the heavy preference it has for Template

But it certainly is an interesting effort.

Personally, I remain with the pure OO approach to web dev - which
means CGI::Prototype is closed to how I operate.


Nov 16, 2009, 5:35:02 PM11/16/09
to squatting-framework
Regarding CGI::Prototype, I went to the talk that Randal Schwartz gave
on it when he visited a few years back, and ...I felt that his
understanding of the web development was a bit lacking at that point
in time. I asked him how redirects were done in CGI::Prototype, and
his answer back then was that he didn't use redirects. I was slightly
shocked by that answer.


Terrence Brannon

Nov 16, 2009, 7:25:44 PM11/16/09

yes, we've had this discussion on here before. You have a REST-ish style
where you take a POST of data and then redirect to the same url with a
GET to display the results of the post if successful.

I get along just fine in CGI::Prototype with object-oriented dispatch
instead of the redirect style.

The worst things about CGI::Prototype are:

1 - the docs: they dont motivate why he chose prototype based objects.
he speaks of it a bit in IRC channels, but has not written any articles
or anything showing how prototype objects provide advantages over
class-based ones in web-dev. And when I ask him to do so, I get
responses like this:

2 - he wont allow a Moose-based update of CGIP into the distribution,
because Moose is class-based by default. I spent a good amount of time
writing such an upgrade
<> and then found
out he wouldnt accept it. I really dont feel like creating a separate
distribution when the central controller of both is so similar.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages