in reply to Re^3: Review: CGI::Prototype
in thread Review: CGI::Prototype

I think that's an excellent summary of C::P, and my understanding of C::A as well.

With C::P, you define a view and its associated controller. (I got this model from Smalltalk many decades ago.) The controller presents the view, which the user interacts with, which the controller then decides what to do next: activating another controller, or staying in the same view. Of course, controllers share a lot of code, and that's where the class hierarchy comes in. And we need a meta controller to handle the stateless nature of the web to select which controller is active, and a piece of meta information (the "state") to help with that.

Thus, I believe (other than the commitment to Template Toolkit, which can be overridden with a single method override, and the inclusion of a object for field interpretation) that C::P is the most generic framework you can create. So, based on that most generic structure, I have one concrete derivative that deals with using a hidden field (C::P::Hidden), but I suspect there will be others.

I also have a nice testing tool, which nobody has talked about, C::P::Mecha, which allows WWW::Mechanize to "run" the application, but in the same process without a webserver. This alone is worth the price of the download. {grin}

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Review: CGI::Prototype
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 03, 2004 at 18:46 UTC
    Now C::P sounds like Spoon/Spiffy