I think you mean File::Finder vs File::Find::Rule. And in fact, that's true. I looked at the prior art in File::Find::Rule, even the implementation, and decided I could do better. And I both acknowledge that in the docs (about FFR), I also embrace the existing FFR plugins with my own "ffr" method in File::Finder.
But everyone seems uppity that I'm trying to do the same thing with CGI::Application. No, please, no. I looked at everything out there for what I needed for my client. Nothing worked. I didn't set out to define a "better CGI::Application". I set out to define a generic MVC metacontroller that would easily subclass to be the controllers I needed for a few of my clients. Nobody has done that. CGI::Application isn't it, nor does it pretend to be it.
So, please stop comparing this to CGI::Application, any more than you'd compare Template Toolkit to Embperl. They're not the same class of framework. They have different goals.
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
Want more info? How to link or
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.