Re: Re: Re: CGI_Lite vs. CGI::Simple

in reply to Re: Re: CGI_Lite vs. CGI::Simple
in thread lighter alternative to CGI.pm

If that's all you need why not call CGI::Cookie or CGI::Simple::Cookie directly? You don't need to call CGI/CGI::Simple at all as these modules have their own APIs....

use CGI::Cookie;
use Data::Dumper;
my %cookies = fetch CGI::Cookie;
print "Content-type: text/html\n\n", Dumper \%cookies;
[download]

cheers

tachyon

s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

Comment on Re: Re: Re: CGI_Lite vs. CGI::Simple Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: CGI_Lite vs. CGI::Simple by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 19, 2002 at 20:35 UTC
It's a good idea. Unfortunately, CGI::Cookie requires CGI, which slows the script down massively. CGI::Simple::Cookie is measurably slower than CGI_Lite at this. Remember, compile times are part of it and that may be the only problem for CGI::Simple -- it uses two separate files. I'm currently working on getting fastCGI to run with this setup, because it's absurd to have to think about the number of files being used as a performance problem.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Re: CGI_Lite vs. CGI::Simple
by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 19, 2002 at 20:35 UTC

I'm currently working on getting fastCGI to run with this setup, because it's absurd to have to think about the number of files being used as a performance problem.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom