•Re: Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks

•Re: Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules

by merlyn (Sage)

on Jul 31, 2003 at 20:48 UTC ( [id://279781]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules
in thread CGI versus CGI::* modules

Well, I disagree. CGI.pm is a great first step away from the hand-rolled solutions, and it's ubiquitous, being a core module.

It also handles cookies, sticky fields, and XHTML generation quite nicely.

I'm not sure what you mean by "beast of a module", since it's also "self-loaded", only compiling the parts of itself that you ask for, so it's really the same as a dynamically readjusting module that has exactly what you want. What more could you ask for?

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Comment on •Re: Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: •Re: Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules
by hardburn (Abbot) on Aug 01, 2003 at 13:24 UTC

I agree that CGI.pm is great for getting away from hand-rolled solutions. It may not be perfect, but you could do far, far worse.

Handling cookies is nice, but there again, other modules exist that handle that specifically. Sticky fields and XHTML aren't a concern for me, because I use templates extensiviely for any non-trivial CGI.

That's interesting about the dynamic loading, I didn't know about that.

----
I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom