« Thoughts On Catalyst, SOA and Web Services | Main | Perl Catalyst - Hamburg Status and the Future »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'm down with breaking backwards compatibility, you've got to break a few eggs to make a cake, as they say. as for contributing, I'm planning on it, but I've just moved country, house and job, so things are a little up in the air atm!

Caleb Cushing

I agree with @n0body. I stopped contributing because (outside of due to increasing lack of time, and lack of need for a framework in general) I did not find catalyst to be what I needed, and in the one case where my former employer was looking for a framework, I could not sell them on Catalyst.

Things you should put in the survey ( which of these features do you want next, vote for 3 of whatever maybe ). You can represent backwards compatibility changes with this.

Better routing, Chained just had too many weirdisms (concept isn't bad but it was buggy in a way that only breaking backcompat could fix). Also perhaps centralized routing for new people to get started with.

I want Dependency Injection (Bread::Board++) Not as a replacement for config though, that is not how DI should be used (I should probably volunteer for this as according to Stevan I'm one of a handful that understands, but Tuits). I'd start this one by just making Catalyst use it under the hood, worry about making it nice for users later.


I agree with both comments above. If the price to make it better framework is back compatibility, I would vote for that. Making things easier, would (hopefully) bring more new contributors.
Making the async stuff possible and better support to easily create RESTful APIs in the latest releases should also be step forward.

The comments to this entry are closed.