Historically, cgi-lib.pl was used for the OpenSRS. Since it works, we
haven't changed it - although, I agree CGI.pm is superior. It's marked as
an enhancement and will happen... eventually.
Since v2.2+ of the code requires Perl 5.005 or higher anyway, keeping
cgi-lib.pl in there may be superfluous. As the old adage says - if it
ain't broke, don't fix it.
Charles Daminato
TUCOWS Product Manager (ccTLDs)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Merlin wrote:
> Could be, but some of the other libs require installing anyway? Just
> preferences I guess.
> ---
> Robert Chalmers
> http://www.quantum-radio.net.au Quantum Radio
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.inexpensivewebsites.com Domain Name Registrations
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "opensrs-dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Why not use CGI.pm
>
>
> > I agree, but I think the reason why OpensSRS doesn't use CGI.pm is
> that they
> > are afraid that it is not installed?
> >
> > --Kit
> >
> > >
> > > I'm wondering why CGI.pm isn't being used as follows, thus
> avoiding
> > > cgi-lib.pl - as well as reducing the bulk of the distribution.
> I've
> > > heard that cgi-lib.pl is not all that reliable in places!
> > >
> > >
> > > ie, running this in reg_system seems to have no illeffects that I
> can
> > > discerne?
> > >
> > > #use Data::Dumper;
> > > use strict;
> > > use lib $PATH_LIB;
> > > use RACE;
> > > use CGI qw(:cgi-lib); <------------ takes
> care of
> > > any cgi-lib specific calls
> > > #do "$PATH_LIB/cgi-lib.pl"; <------------ disabled.
> > >
> > > use OpenSRS::XML_Client qw(:default);
> > >
> > > What do other code developers think?
> > >
> > > Robert
> > > ---
> > > Robert Chalmers
> > > http://www.quantum-radio.net.au Quantum Radio
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.inexpensivewebsites.com Domain Name Registrations
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
