Re: Proposed Architecture Changes in 2.0 (Request for comments)

["David F. Skoll" <..hidden..>]

Kaare Rasmussen wrote:

> Use Catalyst. It lets you do what you want. It only steps in where you need 
> it.

I'm not so sure about that recommendation.  Having built some small
projects with Catalyst, I found it fairly large and unwieldy, quite
demanding of prerequisites and in a frustrating state of flux.
(Granted, this was about a year ago... things may have changed.)

Here's what I mean about prerequisites:
http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=Catalyst::Runtime;perl=latest

Yikes!

> Catalyst handles M, V, and C as pluggable parts.  You can even write your own 
> model layer, though most people want to use an ORM. Currently I think most 
> people use DBIx::Class, thhough I'd personally like to look into Fey and 
> Fey::ORM. There's more SQL flavor in there :-)

Catalyst is really cool, no doubt about that.  Unfortunately, it's exhibiting
"False Hubris" from "Programming Perl"  (that is, using ever-growing mounds
of abstraction.)  It's also TIMTOWTDI gone insane... a fellow programmer
working on a Catalyst-based project went nuts trying to find the "right"
Catalyst-esque way of doing things.

As for an ORM, I agree with Chris.  ORM's are often annoying and just
get in your way.  If you define your models cleanly, you don't need an ORM.

Regards,

David.