At 11:32 AM 5/17/00 -0400, Drew Taylor wrote:
>Vivek Khera wrote:
> >
> > Have you looked at CGI::Form that already exists? It would be a good
> > basis. Currently, it is based on CGI::Request but should be able to
> > use Apache::Request one would expect.
>Actually, I have briefly looked at this module and looked no more when I
>realized it was no longer being maintained. I'll take a look at the code
>and see if it's workable to our goals. It would be really nice to have a
>starting point, no matter how rough.
>
>I had also considered looking at CGI.pm and seeing how it does things
>internally. Is it "moral" to use code from one module in another if they
>are both released under the same license?
"moral" or "legal". In my book it is moral to take code snippets as long as
due credit is given for Open Source. At the level of code snippets, that's
really how we all learn programming anyway. I would be hard pressed to find
anyone that writes truly original code (unless they make it look really
weird like the obfuscation contests!).
That is usually what the Open Source licenses request anyway.
If people didn't want you to pervert the code, they wouldn't have made it
open source.
> > I think the name CGI::Form is appropriate, since the forms are part of
> > the CGI protocol, not anything mod_perl or Apache sepecific.
> > CGI::Form seems to be an abandoned module, so I'm sure you can get
> > permission to adopt it and extend it.
>Well, in our case we are looking to make it mod_perl specific. See my
>previous post for my reasoning why. The name is not terribly important
>to me, but the Apache:: namespace seemed appropriate for it's mod_perl
>specificness (is that a word?).
You stated why but it seemed a bit vague. You mention performance. What
about CGI.pm's HTML generation methods is too slow that you will improve
using mod_perl specific features? And why is the API itself a reason for it
being slow that you have to make the API itself different from CGI.pm?
