Thanks everyone for their inputs. I still think we can learn a few things from
.Net design - not everything Microsoft produces is junk :)
That said, has anyone on this list ever tried PerlNet
(http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/docs/PerlDevKit) from ActiveState? Good/Bad ?
Fine Prints?
- Prav
On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Boysenberry Payne wrote:
Currently, without something like cpan for JS and with most of our
administration
tasks being handled via Actionscript in the client browser I'm
probably going
to take my time and continue writing most of my JS; most of it is
pretty
On Apr 27, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Foo JH wrote:
Boysenberry Payne wrote:
One of the draw back that seems to be evident to me as I've looked
into the client side frameworks is changes in the code are ought
of your control. WIth a purely server side solution it would seem
to give the coder the choic
Boysenberry Payne wrote:
One of the draw back that seems to be evident to me as I've looked
into the client side frameworks is changes in the code are ought
of your control. WIth a purely server side solution it would seem
to give the coder the choice to upgrade when there is time, etc.
With the
On Apr 26, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Michael Peters wrote:
I don't really know of a good one that has a nice matrix like view
for a
comparison. And any that do are way out of date. Like any
framework, it really
depends on what you want. Do you want it to smooth over some of
Javascript's
rougher ed
Boysenberry Payne wrote:
> It was Yahoo's yui-ext library aka extjs that I was told this could
> really be a problem
> with. So I guess all JS frameworks aren't created equal.
It actually shouldn't be a problem as long as you don't use their hosted version
of files and use local copies instead.
On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Michael Peters wrote:
Boysenberry Payne wrote:
One of the draw back that seems to be evident to me as I've looked
into the client side frameworks is changes in the code are ought
of your control. WIth a purely server side solution it would seem
to give the coder t
On Apr 25, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Michael Peters wrote:
Clinton Gormley wrote:
code, it's own CSS , it's own images! There should be a well
established usage pattern so someone just downloads the grid module,
run the installer and it puts all the files in 'right' places.
Of course, it's not possibl
From: Praveen Ray
The bigger issue is not of client or server side controls. What's sorely
missing is a recommended best practice pattern that mod-perl people should
follow to package and deliver chunks of functionality.
"There is more than one way to do it" is an advantage, not a disadvantag
Clinton Gormley wrote:
>> code, it's own CSS , it's own images! There should be a well
>> established usage pattern so someone just downloads the grid module,
>> run the installer and it puts all the files in 'right' places.
>> Of course, it's not possible currently since everyone has a different
> code, it's own CSS , it's own images! There should be a well
> established usage pattern so someone just downloads the grid module,
> run the installer and it puts all the files in 'right' places.
> Of course, it's not possible currently since everyone has a different
> framework and different
Message
From: Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Boysenberry Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Modperl Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:52:36 PM
Subject: Re: Perl and ASP.Net
Boysenberry Payne wrote:
> One of the draw back that seems to be evident to me as I&#
Boysenberry Payne wrote:
> One of the draw back that seems to be evident to me as I've looked
> into the client side frameworks is changes in the code are ought
> of your control. WIth a purely server side solution it would seem
> to give the coder the choice to upgrade when there is time, etc.
>
One of the draw back that seems to be evident to me as I've looked
into the client side frameworks is changes in the code are ought
of your control. WIth a purely server side solution it would seem
to give the coder the choice to upgrade when there is time, etc.
With the 3rd party frameworks they
ASP.Net tries to do both the server and client side (sometimes the programmer
doesn't even know if his C# code is actually going to be run on the server or
the client). Perl (and on this list mod_perl) takes care of the server side but
leaves the client side up to you.
I believe that's the gr
Praveen Ray wrote:
>>> Most geeks make lousy web designers and would rather fiddle
>>> with the back end server code than CSS and javascript.
>
>>I agree that I'm a lousy designer, but in this day Javascript (and CSS
> to some
>>extent) are becoming more and more important. Javascript is a real
>
>> Most geeks make lousy web designers and would rather fiddle
>> with the back end server code than CSS and javascript.
>I agree that I'm a lousy designer, but in this day Javascript (and CSS to some
>extent) are becoming more and more important. Javascript is a real programming
>language relega
If you want a lamp framework with reusable UI controls, maybe you should
look at http://www.activegrid.com/ . I don't believe it supports modperl
though. As far as I know, there isn't an easy high-level web design
framework that lets designers achieve some of the better features you see
today
Praveen Ray wrote:
> My biggest gripe about these web frameworks is the lack of
> reusable UI controls aka ASP.Net. One reason ASP.Net has caught on so
> quickly is the availability of inexpensive and slick third party UI
> controls.
ASP.Net tries to do both the server and client side (sometimes
On 4/23/07, Praveen Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
t
Hello people
Trying to look for the *best* perl web framework out there and looking for
suggestions. I've looked at Catalyst, Jifty and bunch of other frameworks.
My biggest gripe about these web frameworks is the lack of reusable UI
controls a
Hello people
Trying to look for the *best* perl web framework out there and looking for
suggestions. I've looked at Catalyst, Jifty and bunch of other frameworks. My
biggest gripe about these web frameworks is the lack of reusable UI controls
aka ASP.Net. One reason ASP.Net has caught on so qui
21 matches
Mail list logo
