|Catalyst And More - An Interview With Matt Trout|
|Written by Nikos Vaggalis|
|Thursday, 06 February 2014|
Page 1 of 2
Nikos Vaggalis set out to find out about the Catalyst web framework from its co-maintainer Matt S. Trout. Their discussion turned out not to be just about Catalyst, however. While discussing the virtues of the framework, Matt divulged in his own colorful language, what makes other popular web frameworks tick. He also shared invaluable thoughts on architecting software as well as on the possibility of Perl 6 someday replacing Perl 5 for web development.
Matt S Trout, technical team leader at consulting firm Shadowcat Systems Limited, is the creator of the DBIx::Class ORM and of many other CPAN modules, and of course co-maintainer of the Catalyst web framework. These are some of his activities, but for this interview we are primarily interested in Matt’s work with Catalyst.
So, Matt, let’s start with the basics. Catalyst is a MVC framework. What is the MVC pattern and how does Catalyst implement it?
The fun part about MVC is that if you go through a dozen pages about it on Google you’ll end up with at least ten different definitions. The two that are probably most worthwhile paying attention to are the original and the Rails definitions.
The original concept of MVC came out of the Xerox PARC work and was invented for Smalltalk GUIs. It posits a model which is basically data that you’re live-manipulating, a view which is responsible for rendering that, and a controller which accepts user actions.
The key thing about it was that the view knew about the model, but nothing else. The controller knew about the model and the view, while the model was treated like a mushroom – kept in the dark; the view/controller classes handled changes to the model by using the observer pattern, so an event got fired when they changed (you’ll find that angular.js, for example, works on pretty much this basis – it’s very much a direct-UI-side pattern).
Now, what Rails calls MVC (and, pretty much, Catalyst also does) is a sort of attempt to squash that into the server side at which point your view is basically the sum of the templating system you’re using plus the browser’s rendering engine, and your controller is the sum of the browser’s dispatch of links and forms and the code that handles that server side. So, server side, you end up with the controller being the receiver for the HTTP request, which picks some model data and puts it in … usually some sort of unstructured bag. In Catalyst we have a hash attached to the request context called the stash. In Rails they use the controller’s instance attributes and then you hand that unstructured bag of model objects off to a template, which then renders it – this is your server-side view.
So, the request cycle for a traditional HTML rendering Catalyst app is:
So, in practice, a lot of stuff isn’t exactly MVC … but there’ve been so many variants and reinterpretations of the pattern over the years that above all it means to “keep the interaction flow, the business logic, and the display separate … somehow” which is clearly a good thing, and idiomatic catalyst code tends to do it. The usual rule of thumb is “if this logic could make sense in a different UI (e.g. a CLI script or a cron job), then it probably belongs inside the domain code that your web app regards as its model”; plus “keep the templates simple, and keep their interaction with the model read-only – anything clever or mutating probably belongs in the controller”.
So you basically drive to push anything non-cosmetic out of the view, and then anything non-current-UI-specific out of the controller and the end result is at least approximately MVC for some of the definitions and ends up being decently maintainable
Can you swap template engines for the view as well as, at the backend, swap DBMS’s for the model?
Access to the models and views is built atop a fairly simple IOC system – inversion of control – so basically Catalyst loads and makes available whatever models and views are provided, and then the controller will ask Catalyst for the objects it needs. So the key thing is that a single view is responsible for a view onto the application; the templating engine is an implementation detail, in effect, and there are a bunch of view base classes that mean you don’t have to worry about that, but if you had an app with a main UI and an admin UI, you might decide to keep both those UIs within the same Catalyst application and have two views that use the same templating system but a completely different set of templates/HTML style/etc.
In terms of models, if you need support from your web framework to swap database backends, you’re doing something horribly wrong. The idea is that your domain model code is just something that exposes methods that the rest of the code uses – normally it doesn’t even live in the Catalyst model/ directory. In there are adapter classes that basically bolt external code into your application.
Because the domain code shouldn’t be web-specific in the first place you have some slightly more specialised adapters – notably Catalyst::model::DBIC::Schema which makes it easier to do a bunch of clever things involving DBIx::Class – but the DBIx::Class code, which is what talks to your database for you, is outside the scope of the Catalyst app itself.
The web application should be designed as an interface to the domain model which not only makes things a lot cleaner, but means that you can test your domain model code without needing to involve Catalyst at all. Running a full HTTP request cycle just to see if a web-independent calculation is implemented correctly is a waste of time, money and perfectly good electricity!
So, Catalyst isn’t so much DBMS-independent as domain-implementation-agnostic. There are catalyst apps that don’t even have a database, that manage, for example, LDAP trees, or serve files from disk (e.g. the app for our advent calendar). The model/view instantiation stuff is useful, but the crucial advantage is cultural. It’s not so much about explicitly building for pluggability as refusing to impose requirements on the domain code, at which point you don’t actually need to implement anything specific to be able to plug in pretty much whatever code is most appropriate. Sometimes opinion is really useful. Opinion about somebody else’s business logic, on the other hand, should in my experience be left to the domain experts rather than the web architect.
Does all that flexibility come at a price?
The key price is that while there are common ways to do things, you’re rarely going to find One True Way to solve any given problem. It’s more likely to be “here’s half a dozen perfectly reasonable ways, which one is best probably depends on what the rest of your code looks like”, plus while there’s generally not much integration specific code involved, everything else is a little more DIY than most frameworks seem to require.
I can put together a catalyst app that does something at least vaguely interesting in a couple hours, but doing the sort of 5 minute wow moment thing that intro screencasts and marketing copy seem to aim for just doesn’t happen, and often when people first approach catalyst they tend to get a bit overwhelmed by the various features and the way you can put them together.
There’s a reflex of “this is too much, I don’t need this!”. But then a fair percentage of them come back two or three years later, have another look and go “ah, I see why I want all these features now: I’d've written half as much code since I thought I didn’t need all Catalyst features”. Similarly the wow moment is usually three months or six months into a project, when you realise that adding features is still going quickly because the code’s naturally shaken out into a sensible structure
So, there’s quite a bit of learning, and it’s pretty easy for it to look like overkill if you haven’t already experienced the pain involved. It’s a lot like the use strict problem writ large – declaring variables with my inappropriate scopes rather than making it up as you go along is more thinking and more effort to begin with, so it’s not always easy to get across that it’s worth it until the prospective user has had blue daemons fly out of his nose a couple of times from mistakes a more structured approach would’ve avoided.
So, it’s flexibility at the expense of a steep learning curve, but apart from that, if I could compare Catalyst to Rails, I would say that Rails tries to be more like a shepherd guiding the herd the way it thinks is the right one or the way they should go, while Catalyst allows room to move and make your own decisions. Is that a valid interpretation?
It seems to me that Rails is very much focused on having opinions, so there’s a single obvious answer for all the common cases. Where you choose not to use a chunk of the stack, whatever replaces it is similarly a different set of opinions, whereas Catalyst definitely focuses on apps that are going to end up large enough to have enough weird corners that you’re going to end up needing to take your own choices. So Rails is significantly better at making easy things as easy as possible but Catalyst seems to do better at making hard things reasonably natural if you’re willing to sit down and think about it.
I remember talking to a really smart Rails guy over beer at a conference (possibly in Italy) and the two things I remember the most were him saying “my customers’ business logic just isn’t that complicated and Rails makes it easy to get it out of the way so I can focus on the UI”, and when I talked about some of the complexities I was dealing with, his first response was, “wait, you had HOW many tables?”.
|Last Updated ( Thursday, 06 February 2014 )|