[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Evaluating Catalyst and other frameworks



Chris Travers wrote:
Hi all;


Catalyst fan here though it has been awhile since I did any actual coding.

I've been avoiding the discussion up to now since it was mostly heading in (my idea of) the correct direction. :-) Since I want to help and being in at the beginning, verses reverse knowledge engineering, is easier I'm chiming in now.

I have spent some time looking at Catalyst to see what would be
required to make LedgerSMB run according to current development
approaches (close to the db, etc) and the result isn't easy.
Basically, at a minimum, the following would need to be ported:

1)  Our model

Current model or _planned_ "thick" model. (Not sure what the proper term is for what is proposed, ie. everything model and generic business-rule wise that will fit and work in the database.)

If you're thinking of getting the current model into Catalyst then there would be some _work_ to do!

If the new model then designing and creating it will be choke point.

2)  Authentication handlers and session handlers

There are some excellent tools for this that are available for "Catalyst" already.

3)  While HTML templates could use appropriate Catalyst classes,
LaTeX-based views would need to be ported....  Similarly plaint text
templates might or might not be able to be handled directly.

I thought LSMB was using TT already. Should be very minor/few changes make them work.

4)  Printing directly to a printer would require subclassing existing views....

I don't see this being simpler on any other framework unless it
supports the sort of stuff we're doing and that would be unusual.

OK. I guess you're thinking of doing this for 1.3+. All Catalyst related comments above should be nullified for now. :-)


\\||/
Rod
--
My recommendation at this point is getting stronger:  Release a basic
framework ourselves and then facilitate ports of these relevant
components to other frameworks.  I don't see a lot of short-term gains
from moving to an MVC framework where we have to write our own model
handlers, some of our own view handlers, and so forth.  However, even
having the first two areas (session/auth/model interface) working on a
framework would open that framework up for use in creating addons,
etc.....  Of course if everyone decides that one of the frameworks is
the best way to go, then we can switch the primary implementation at
that time and leave the current approach as a reference
implementation.

Does this sound about right?

Best Wishes,
Chris travers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
..hidden..
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel