At 09:41 09.07.2001 -0700, Curtis Poe wrote:
>Gah!!! I wish I had seen this thread sooner (I've been out with the flu).
>
>Whoever wrote their own alternative to CGI.pm, post your code and I'll
>point out plenty of flaws
>in it. I'm sure I'll find at least 5 (one of these days I'll find fewer
>in a hand-rolled version,
>but I haven't yet).
>
>I'm not saying this to be rude, but CGI tends to be much trickier than
>people think even though it
>looks really simple. If you plan to do any long-term work with CGI, why
>not go with the industry
>standard? It's the standard because it works.
Aaaarrgghh!!! I get frustrated when people don't read my entire posts!
I never said that I was writing an alternative to CGI.pm. I said I wrote
my own sub for parsing the input off of an HTML form, because of all the
CGI stuff that I do, that's usually the only thing I would use CGI.pm
for. I use templates for outputting HTML, and I wrote an ftp plug in for
file transfer, so I have very little use for all of the CGI.pm
goodies. That's not to say that CGI.pm isn't a great module -- it's
awesome! I'm just saying that if you want to use CGI forms on the
internet, it's not *absolutely* necessary that you use CGI.pm for the
simple stuff all the time. There is more than one way to do it :)
>Oh, and about the overhead of loading CGI.pm: if you have a site that is
>so slow that loading
>CGI.pm is causing performance issues, than CGI.pm is the last of your
>worries. If you are worried
>that you'll get to the point where CGI.pm will cause those performance
>issues, than your
>hand-rolled version will not be adequate. At the very least, check out
>CGI::Lite.
You are correct that loading CGI.pm is going to make very little difference
in the overall time it takes to run your project. But, I find it good
programming practice to be as efficient as possible -- even if the
difference is negligible.
Aaron Craig
Programming
iSoftitler.com
