Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

by dragonchild (Archbishop)
on May 02, 2004 at 03:03 UTC ( [id://349732]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

After a very cursory examination, I would be leery. C::A has a lot of mileage behind it. It's very stable and has a huge following. It also has been extensively testing with both mod_perl 1 and 2.

That said, I would give it a whirl. The conversion process looks to be both simple and well-thought out. If it works for you, then go for it!

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder
by perrin (Chancellor) on May 02, 2004 at 03:57 UTC
    I would describe it more like C::A has studiously ignored both mod_perl 1 and 2. It is simply a well-behaved CGI program, which makes it easy to run under Apache::Registry and ModPerl::Registry.
      You can use CGI::Builder under Apache::Registry and ModPerl::Registry as well, exactly like you do with C::A.

      The Apache::CGI::Builder adds just some feature you might appreciate under mod_perl ;-)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://349732]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-03-29 08:07 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found