This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
To: modperl@apache.org From: dom@idealx.com Subject: Re: Mason vs embperl Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:55:20 +0100 > So I installed and compared. I preferred the syntax of Mason, the > flexible way to build components, the caching ... it have to be > said here that I choose Mason ... I agree, the caching is very good and one gets up and running in no time with Mason. However, I find it imposes too much of a coding style to the programmer : for example, all pages are evaluated inside the same package and thus one cannot define two "normal" subroutines with the same name in two different pages. === To: dom@idealx.com From: "C.Hauser - IT assistance GmbH" <c.hauser@itassistance.ch> Subject: Re[2]: Mason vs embperl Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:45:47 +0100 >> So I installed and compared. I preferred the syntax of Mason, the >> flexible way to build components, the caching ... it have to be >> said here that I choose Mason ... > > I agree, the caching is very good and one gets up and running in no > time with Mason. However, I find it imposes too much of a coding style > to the programmer : for example, all pages are evaluated inside the > same package and thus one cannot define two "normal" subroutines with > the same name in two different pages. Use the parser new() parameter 'in_package' Extract from the mason manual: "Indicates the name of the package you wish your components to run in. This way different applications or virtual hosts can be run in different name spaces. Default is HTML::Mason::Commands." I simply decided to use subs only in *.pm files as libraries and so using allays the same name for the same functionality. ===