We have a big e-learning mod_perl web app, which use AxKit, XML, XLST and javascript primarily running on a unix server. What I've came to notice is that the codes are rather messy, and there has been a few generations of developers coming in and out. Due to the current structure, the task of trying to make a simple hello world webpage involves writing a few components to get it work, due to the AxKit XSL transformation thingy.
我们有一个大型的电子学习mod_perl网络应用程序,它使用主要在unix服务器上运行的AxKit,XML,XLST和javascript。我注意到的是代码相当混乱,并且有几代开发人员进出。由于当前的结构,尝试创建一个简单的hello world网页的任务涉及编写一些组件以使其工作,因为AxKit XSL转换很简单。
So, I'm looking at the powerful Catalyst framework, and the MVC itself is making me drool. I'm looking for resources and best practices to see if porting the current web app over to Catalyst is feasible.
所以,我正在看强大的Catalyst框架,而MVC本身让我流口水。我正在寻找资源和最佳实践,看看将当前的Web应用程序移植到Catalyst是否可行。
I would like to hear from fellow Catalyst-ers if the move will be worth it in case my management ask the magic question, why?
如果我的管理层提出了一个神奇的问题,我想听一下Catalyst-ers的同事是否值得,为什么?
thanks :)
1 个解决方案
#1
My guess would be "it depends on how much AxKit are you using". If you're just using XSLT and not XSP, XPathScript, or any of the styles dynamic stuff then it'll probably be pretty straight forward. If you're using some of the more interesting creatures in the AxKit universe then you'll certainly want to take a deeper look at how well Catalyst can support things like XPathScript and XSP (as far as I know there isn't any support currently). If you're looking at dumping XML/XSLT entirely then it's certainly easier to go down the Catalyst path than not.
我的猜测是“这取决于你使用的AxKit数量”。如果您只是使用XSLT而不是XSP,XPathScript或任何样式的动态内容,那么它可能非常简单。如果您正在使用AxKit Universe中的一些更有趣的生物,那么您肯定希望深入了解Catalyst如何能够支持XPathScript和XSP之类的东西(据我所知目前没有任何支持) )。如果您正在考虑完全转储XML / XSLT,那么沿着Catalyst路径行进肯定会更容易。
I know several of the AxKit developers have used, and do use Catalyst for some projects and even the most stubborn of them will probably admit that Catalyst is powerful and easy to achieve some goals. AxKit is a more specialized tool for people who want the "xkit xsl transformation thingy."
我知道有几个AxKit开发人员使用过,并且确实在某些项目中使用了Catalyst,即使是最顽固的项目也可能会承认Catalyst功能强大且易于实现某些目标。 AxKit是一个更专业的工具,适合那些想要“xkit xsl转换的人”。
If you're on irc.perl.org come ask in the #axkit-dahut channel, we have both AxKit and Catalyst core developers ;)
如果您在irc.perl.org上,请在#axkit-dahut频道询问,我们有AxKit和Catalyst核心开发人员;)
#1
My guess would be "it depends on how much AxKit are you using". If you're just using XSLT and not XSP, XPathScript, or any of the styles dynamic stuff then it'll probably be pretty straight forward. If you're using some of the more interesting creatures in the AxKit universe then you'll certainly want to take a deeper look at how well Catalyst can support things like XPathScript and XSP (as far as I know there isn't any support currently). If you're looking at dumping XML/XSLT entirely then it's certainly easier to go down the Catalyst path than not.
我的猜测是“这取决于你使用的AxKit数量”。如果您只是使用XSLT而不是XSP,XPathScript或任何样式的动态内容,那么它可能非常简单。如果您正在使用AxKit Universe中的一些更有趣的生物,那么您肯定希望深入了解Catalyst如何能够支持XPathScript和XSP之类的东西(据我所知目前没有任何支持) )。如果您正在考虑完全转储XML / XSLT,那么沿着Catalyst路径行进肯定会更容易。
I know several of the AxKit developers have used, and do use Catalyst for some projects and even the most stubborn of them will probably admit that Catalyst is powerful and easy to achieve some goals. AxKit is a more specialized tool for people who want the "xkit xsl transformation thingy."
我知道有几个AxKit开发人员使用过,并且确实在某些项目中使用了Catalyst,即使是最顽固的项目也可能会承认Catalyst功能强大且易于实现某些目标。 AxKit是一个更专业的工具,适合那些想要“xkit xsl转换的人”。
If you're on irc.perl.org come ask in the #axkit-dahut channel, we have both AxKit and Catalyst core developers ;)
如果您在irc.perl.org上,请在#axkit-dahut频道询问,我们有AxKit和Catalyst核心开发人员;)