Re: Replacing CGI.pm is busywork

CGI.pm ain't nothing but a pure-perl module

So replacing CGI.pm ain't nothing but busywork

As long as your .cgis are written well, that is as per CGI to mod_perl Porting. mod_perl Coding guidelines, then they're ready to run virtually unaltered in persistent environment thanks to PSGI

Comment on Re: Replacing CGI.pm is busywork

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Replacing CGI.pm is busywork by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jun 21, 2018 at 01:53 UTC
I agree to the extent that a CGI script that is ready to move to Apache::Registry is also ready to move to psgi via Plack::App::WrapCGI. I disagree that mod_perl should be recommended today. It RFC:SHOULD NOT be. We've been over the reasons this is the case, and has been for a decade, many times now.	[reply]
Re^3: Replacing CGI.pm is busywork by Anonymous Monk on Jun 21, 2018 at 03:14 UTC
I agree to the extent that a CGI script that is ready to move to Apache::Registry is also ready to move to psgi via Plack::App::WrapCGI. As we should I disagree that mod_perl should be recommended today. I dont see that a particular persistent environment has been recommended. If you know of a better guide on fixing up cgi scripts you know what to do. We've been over the reasons this is the case, and has been for a decade, many times now. Not us we :)	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks