Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

I think catalyst was modeled closely on ROR. ROR is quite nice if a substantial part of what you wnat is CRUD based on db schema. Also the AJAX tools look good. But i18n  support is not looking too solid, though it may improve. This seems to be a problem with most frameworks though, and because

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

> "Daniel" == Daniel McBrearty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniel> I think catalyst was modeled closely on ROR. Heh. Catalyst was in production long before RoR was even being discussed. Let's not accuse the Perl community of playing catchup. The Perl folks are the leaders here. -- Randal

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

"Let's not accuse the Perl community of playing catchup ..."I don't see things that way anyway. People always take good ideas from other places and reuse them, and it's always been so. On 25 Feb 2006 06:28:19 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > "Daniel" == Daniel McBreart

MP2 on FreeBSD - How often to update Apache/MP/Libapreq/Perl?

I decided to upgrade my production box last night for some apps (its FreeBSD 6.0 ) not fun. the port system does a great job , but without me realizing it, i had set Perl to upgrade as well which means i'm now sifting through all the errors and manually deinstall/reinstall things that c

Move TestCommon::LogDiff into it's own package?

I've found the TestCommon::LogDiff package in the mod_perl unit tests to be useful in testing my own mod_perl-based packages, and I can see how it would be useful in lots of other applications as well. Could a separate distribution (Test::LogDiff, say) be made out of it so that it's easily re-used

Re: MP2 on FreeBSD - How often to update Apache/MP/Libapreq/Perl?

one can do that!use a cron job for portsnap, then once a week do:portupgrade -arROn the other hand, you probably don't need to.  If you applications are stable, it's probably only worth your time if there is a major change, security flaw, significant performance increase, important bug fix which af

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

* Randal L. Schwartz [2006-02-25 09:30]: > > Daniel> I think catalyst was modeled closely on ROR. > > Heh. Catalyst was in production long before RoR was even being discussed. > > Let's not accuse the Perl community of playing catchup. The Perl > folks are the leaders here. True enough, but s

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

which then begs the question, why RoR and not Catalyst?   mark>>> Randal L. Schwartz 25-Feb-06 09:28:19 AM >>> > "Daniel" == Daniel McBrearty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Daniel> I think catalyst was modeled closely on ROR.Heh.  Catalyst was in production long before RoR was even being discuss

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Mark Galbreath wrote: > which then begs the question, why RoR and not Catalyst? Better marketing, basically. Also the attraction of something new, written in a language about which people have written a lot of new things, and which hasn't attracted the neg

Module::Build + Apache2 oddity

I have a function that does this to get database settings, to test an apache2 handler that uses a database: sub test_db { my $build = Apache::TestMB->current; return unless $build->notes('DBI_DSN'); return map { defined $build->notes($_) ? $build->notes($_) : '' } qw(DBI_DS

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

there's been a popular link critiquing rails floating around http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.309321.3 personally, I hate rails. i'm seeing a lot of colleagues adopt it, with a combination of this reasoning: it 'sucks less than php'( from someone

Re: [OT] modperl vs. Ruby

Good afternoon, On 25/2/06 at 5:18 PM -0500, Todd Grimason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >True enough, but sometimes that "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody >hears it..." saying comes into play. I'd even guess Catalyst picked up >users from the Rails hype(? yes? no?) Yes (I think). I was ser