It's hard for me to see what benefit this provides to the Perl community. There are lots of FS/OSS schema editors out there, all of which are probably more mature than the one this grant would produce.
If this was a request for funds to improve the leading such editor, that'd be different, but as is it seems to be just another wheel reinvention.
This looks quite similar to Catalyst::Example::InstantCRUD and other CRUD Catalyst projects. I understand that it has different goals - but if you decide to use the same underlying modules - then we could steal a bit from each other. I am now working on a new version of InstantCRUD based on Rose::HTML::Form (and DBIx::Class like the former version).
I'm confused by this proposal: is this a database editor or a web framework?
The main benefit of DBEditor over schema editors and web frameworks is that it has an extremely shallow learning curve, and doesn't require a lot of extra pieces to work. To answer acme's question, it's a web-based database editor that can be extended to be used as a simple (or not so simple) framework. To compare it to schema editors and existing web frameworks: Schema editors require that a web framework or other method be used to provide an interface. With a web framework like Catalyst, non-Catalyst users must spend hours or days installing, reading, and learning Catalyst. DBEditor sits in the middle - it has fewer dependencies for a simple installation, and can be learned in under an hour. The programmer simply enters his schema or uses scripts to create them (like schema modules do now), and the basic web interface is created for him, ready to use. From there, he can extend it. Deployment is fast enough to be an alternative to using Excel for simple shared lists. We used it for an artist audition database for a music production company - a one-time use application. Such an application takes under an hour to deploy.
Thanks, that really helped me out.