[Catalyst] Re: template comparison

[Matt S Trout]

Adam Sjøgren wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:05:51 +0000 (GMT), Jon wrote:
> 
>> If considering Mason as a templating language for Catalyst, it's
>> worth looking at Text::MicroMason (and Catalyst::View::MicroMason). 
>> _Almost_ the same syntax as HTML::Mason but fewer prerequisites (in
>> particular not requiring mod_perl)
> 
> How does HTML::Mason require mod_perl?

It may now be fixed, but the way it worked out its dependencies had a tendency 
to result in it deciding to ask for mod_perl for no good reason if certain 
other things were missing.

I found this because I got bored once and decided to help the Jifty guys fix 
their installibility problems since their users seemed to be having worse 
trouble than Catalyst users used to and I was curious if it was something 
simple; I think they went and chased up the Mason guys about it.

Either way though, that was only a Makefile.PL bug - even with the buggy 
version if you installed all the actual deps by hand Mason tested happily with 
no mod_perl.

-- 
      Matt S Trout       Offering custom development, consultancy and support
   Technical Director    contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information

+ Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +