<soapbox> Grr. Why can't people just write bloody applications with HTML in them instead of spending so much energy tryuing to find a way to avoid writing any HTML?
I mean, it's not that hard. Formulate what you want parts to do, make a sort of vanilla, unformatted output here-doc ior template file for each part as necessary, get the functionality going, then prety it up by copying each here-doc or template file into Dreamweaver or something, formatting the HTML to look nice, and then moving the formattted html back in. Template. Mason. Yecch. I feel mildly nauseated every time I hear about stuff like Mason and similar cop-outs. If people would spend half the time learning to output their own HTML that they do trying to find ways around doing so, they'd get a lot more programs written, and there would be less ugly, clunky, messy, badly-interfacd, hard-to-use and ungodly slow web applications out there. I'm still distastefully amazed when I find people using CGI.pm to print a content-type header on something that in no other way uses CGI.pm, has no cookies, or anything else. Yes, I have actually seen someone use CGI to do nothign more than dump their environment variables, when a simple; print "Content-type: text/html\n\n<dl>\n",map("<dt>$_</dt>\n<dd>$ENV{%_}</dd>\n", sort keys %ENV),"</dl>\n"; would do the job perfectly fine. </soapbox> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Frazier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 10:02 AM Subject: CGI::Application > Hi, > > I am still working on building a framework, design plan for this busy site I > am working on. It is a total revamp so I have the chance to do things "right" > > I have been looking into HTML::Template which is a lot simper than Embed > perl or the template tool kit. I am wondering if anyone has experence with > using both of these with Registry.pm I have decided to make my modules > class modules instead of traditional modules, and thanks to Perrin's great > article, I have a lot more confidence in my basic plan. There are some > differences between our site and etoyz. Our site is not nearly as loaded. > Busy, but not giant. Still, I would like to build something that can get > that big without another total rewrite, moving things around, new hardware > sure, but not a whole change to the system. Right now things are small > enough that the rewrite will only take a few weeks. > > So I am looking for gotchas, and other problems that could come esp from > CGI::Application because it doesn't make much mention of working under > mod_perl. I think the "modes" could be appealing to the PHP guys in my > office. It could give them something to chear about, since I think right now > they just look at mod_perl as being more work than PHP which is probably > true. I am also sure that the HTML templates will make the boss very happy > because he is always changing HTML in scripts and breaking the scripts, then > calling and saying, hey the form isn't working anymore! :( > > The big points I want to achieve right now, is to make everything I write > OOP, separate HTML from code as much as possible, and to not make it > impossible to deal with for the people I work with who don't know as much > perl as I do. > > > Thanks, > > > Eric > > http://www.kwinternet.com/eric > (250) 655 - 9513 (PST Time Zone) > > "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -- Will Durant > > > > >