[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: [Mason] www.masonhq.com back to work? Nic Wolff Sat Feb 11 09:00:26 2012

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.
Mason-users mailing list