[Israel.pm] Building a storage site

sawyer x xsawyerx at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 03:46:10 PDT 2010

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Peter Gordon <peter at pg-consultants.com>wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, what are the advantages of dancer over say
> catalyst and CGI::Application and countless others?

Well, each of these frameworks caters to a certain crowd and has its own
special flavor.

CGI::Application has a stage-like continuity that it tries to work with,
which is built with CGI in mind from the start. This incurs possible design
problems later on, IMHO.

Catalyst is really awesome and I love it, but it comes at a price. It's
built mainly for serious web applications, trying to help you work through
multiple layers and depth levels (which Reaction tries to take another step
forward to) and has a lot of dependencies. This is very good in case you
have a heavy application and your own servers where you control all the ins
and outs.

Dancer on the other hand tries to express subtlety and simplicity (and as
least dependencies as we can) while keeping as much strength as possible and
not getting in your way. it's not complete MVC - which Catalyst is - and is
very small and relatively minimalist. The idea is to get you up and running
with a basic website (including several paths) within a minute from the time
you installed it.

To host "/" you simply write:
get '/' => sub {
    # serving /

It was inspired by Sinatra and employs the "routes" concept.

It's also one of the first adapters of PSGI compatibility but retains
HTTP::Server::Simple support as well. That means you can run either
standalone (each instance is a full webserver as well and doesn't need
helper scripts) or using Plack, Starman, Twiggy or any other PSGI compatible
server - or even CGI/FastCGI through Apache or other webservers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.perl.org.il/pipermail/perl/attachments/20100820/0f1af02e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Perl mailing list