Perrin Harkins:
> On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 18:00, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:27:59PM -0800, Kevin Connor wrote:
> > > I checked out Maypole exactly because it used TT and CDBI. I don't want
> > > to move away from those technologies or even abstract away from them.
> >
> > I agree. I'd much rather see Maypole get even more entwined with them.
> > When you head in the opposite direction you can no longer play to the
> > things that make the various components different - you have to reduce
> > everything to lowest common denominator.
I still believe in both, flexible abstraction and tight integration.
Don't know if you looked at my other notes about Maypole3 plans but the
api is flexible enough to use most advanced features of CDBI/TT and also
abstract enough to support all kinds of exotic components (YAML REST,
SAP, LDAP, SPOPS, toasters, coffee machines...whatever...)
>
> I tend to agree that the more your framework does everything, the more
> it does nothing. In other words, the advantage that is gained from
> using a framework is diminished by making it so general that the path to
> setting up a basic app with all the defaults becomes long and the
> documentation becomes stretched too thin.
>
> You can try to mitigate this problem by defining careful interfaces for
> ambitious people who want to use them to plug in something else, but
> only providing examples and code for a specific set of choices. This
> seems to be the approach with Maypole so far.
Right, i'm trying to address that problem with blueprints, simple but
well thought out exchangeable demo applications that are just a set of
base classes (and maybe templates...).
>
> Incidentally, as the youngest kid on the block, it might be a good idea
> for Maypole to check out what some of the more mature MVC frameworks for
> Perl have done about things like abstraction and declarative
> programming. Both OpenInteract (http://http://openinteract.org/) and
> Apache::PageKit (http://pagekit.org/) have been around for a while and
> significant applications have been built with them. They have both
> chosen the tightly coupled route for the most part. Integration with
> SPOPS allows OI to do some interesting security things, but is also a
> liability for people who are used to Class::DBI. OI 2.0 is
> experimenting with the declarative approach.
I know both in depth and still think we can do it better...
Not only them...i also studied the other kids (Struts, Ruby-on-Rails,
Spring Framework...)...and stole a lot of ideas from them... ;)
But i'm not just trying to bring Struts (or "insert favorite framework
here") to Perl, with the next incarnation of Maypole (currently called
"Catalyst") i will add some really new featuress. (like mixing MVC with
Aspect Oriented Programming)
> (It uses the ini files
> style, which I find much clearer and more trustworthy than YAML, but
> that's ultimately beside the point.)
Our YAML loader is just aplugin...you can replace it with whatever you
want...
>
> - Perrin
>
>
sebastian
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT