Wow, the last time I wrote about what's up with Mason was almost two years ago.
So here's the "latest" news ...
Soon after my last update, we released Mason 1.30, which was the culmination of development work that had been going on for about a year or so. The big focus of that release was incorporating various speed enhancements from Amazon.
Since then, the 1.3x series has seen a few more releases, with 1.36 coming any day now. This series has been entirely bug fixes or minor features, and that's not likely to change.
The main reason for this is that Mason is a pretty mature product. It works well for what it's designed to do, and as a templating system it has enough features that we're not scrambling to add a lot more. There are improvements that are worth making, but we're also concerned about backwards compatibility, so we're limited in terms of what we can change.
Historically, Mason has always been more than a templating system. A few years ago, I thought this was great, and I even extended it further with modules like Mason::WebApp.
Recently, Jon Swartz and I have both been trying out Catalyst for new apps. I like it pretty well, and I think Jon does too. We discussed the future of Mason and we both agreed that there's not much point in making Mason a better framework. Catalyst and Jifty just do a better job of this, and there's no point in trying to compete with them, especially since if you like Mason you can use it with either of them (and other frameworks as well).
However, we both still like Mason as a templating language. We talked about what a Mason 2.0 might look like, and agreed that one primary goal would be to separate the templating portion of the system from the framework portion.
I put some notes about this on the Mason HQ site at Mason20Notes. My personal preference would be to simply focus on the templating language portion, and build something suitable for use with Catalyst or Jifty. I'd also like to take this as a chance to break some backwards compatibility. However, there's still no firm plans on whether Mason 2.0 will happen, or exactly what will change.
I think that though Mason is "old" it's still pretty darn good. I haven't seen a new templating system come by that I think looks better, though I am intrigued by Jesse Vincent's Template::Declare. The Mason community is still active, primarily on the mason-users mailing list. It's also still showing up as a desired skill in jobs posted to the Perl jobs site. One interesting thing I've noticed is several UK jobs mentioning Mason, whereas a few years ago it seemed like TT2 had a lock on the UK. I don't think the total # of Mason jobs has changed greatly, but maybe they're moving around.
Ok, see you in two years or so ;)
<%args>
$id
</%args>
<%init>
my $thing = Thing->new(id=>$id)->load;
return (thing => $thing);
</%init>
leaving index.html to accept <%args> $thing </args> without embedding the 'controller' part. this made cobranding much easier, since we could create a custom index.html in the cobrand comp_root, and maintain the index.init in only one place.
the preamble hack is kinda gross, but i think the idea itself has potential.
Re:Text::MicroMason?
autarch on 2007-05-12T22:49:47
It's a subset of the core Mason syntax, but none of the other nice features like autohandlers, component methods/inheritance, and probably none of the many speed optimization features in Mason.
Mason 2.0 would be more than just a syntax, it'd also include things like autohandlers, component compilation, etc.Re:Text::MicroMason?
Aristotle on 2007-05-12T22:59:35
Ugh, no. That thing is the worst. Its error detection/recovery/reporting is utterly atrocious. Malformed templates lead to malformed generated Perl – in the best case, you get to read and debug the generated Perl, in the worst cases I’ve had,
perlflat-out segfaults. A nightmare.Re:Text::MicroMason?
sigzero on 2007-05-12T23:02:07
Well, that makes me glad I never used it. I just read up on it a while ago.
FWIW, I would like a "template" only Mason.Re:Text::MicroMason?
Aristotle on 2007-05-12T23:30:19
Guess why I tried it…
:-) … :-(
Re:On another point...
autarch on 2007-05-13T04:20:30
Hmm, any time between now and never;)
My round tuit supply is already quite low. I can't speak for Jon. At this point, it's more of an idea, and I don't Jon and I even agree on the exact details of the plan, so I don't see implementation starting any time real soon.
Re:On another point...
sigzero on 2007-05-13T12:52:13
Ah, another "out by christmas but I am not telling you which christmas". : )Re:On another point…
Aristotle on 2007-05-13T13:16:06
More like “we’re currently throwing mugs at the wall.”
Re:On another point…
sigzero on 2007-05-13T23:37:31
Ohhh, let's not go there.
I'm a big fan of backward compatibility, conservative code changes. When it comes to any interface that other people are relying on, it's not right to jerk them around.
But I wouldn't be too worried about breaking a few things, as long as there's a good motivation for it, like someone else wrote, and as long as you try to make the transition as smooth as possible and give people plenty of notice.
We had the big changes in version 1.10, where the Compiler, Interp, etc. objects seemed to come into existence. Fan-cee.. Everyone survived, didn't they? And I think Mason is better for the changes.
Actually when I think of stable Perl projects, HTML::Mason is one of the first that comes to mind. Just please don't pull a mod_perl2 on us.
Re:backward compatibility
autarch on 2007-05-14T14:26:37
We definitely will not be putting massively incompatible changes into the HTML::Mason namespace.
We've long talked about moving the namespace to just Mason, and this seems like a good chance to do so.
Jon has talked about making a 2.0 version of the framework piece of Mason to go with the Mason 2.0 templating piece. This might be released under the HTML::Mason namespace, but the goal would be to keep the framework 100% backwards compatible. I'm not sure that doing this is even necessary. HTML::Mason 1.x will stick around for a while, and I'm sure we'd be willing to critical bug fixes as needed.
Re:Simpler templating & integration
autarch on 2007-05-15T12:20:39
Mason is more than just a set of start and end tags. It provides certain features that are unique to Mason, just like TT provides unique features, as do other systems. Swapping out Mason's tag syntax for TT-like syntax is easy, and there is an ASP-like syntax provided by a CPAN module, MasonX::Lexer::MSP.
