On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Svein E. Seldal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your help. I'm closer to my goal, thanks to you. However, I
> have more questions, and I'd hoped you'd enlighten me. I'm reading a lot
> of documentation on the web about MP2, but I need some more information
> to clear things out, and to stitch all these small threads of
> information together.
>
> First of all, my intentions was to use the new MP2 methods only, because
> I'm redesigning things from scratch. And thus having to use
> Apache::compat is a slightly setback, isn't it?
Yes. You are doing the Right Thing.
> Do you have any idea
> when the new MP2-ish methods will be ready? Especially Apache::Request?
It's under development. The others are all there, or what specifically are
you lacking?
Meanwhile you use CGI.pm ...
>
> With other words Apache::Request will be the new MP2 way to do things in
> the future?
Yes. Subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get the progress updates.
>
> Now, testing revealed that $r->args() is only containing the
> query-string that is part of the URI (now I would guess you say daahh)
> -- this is usually used in context with GET requests.
>
> When I send a POST request, the query-string will be stored in the
> contents of the message, and not in $r->args(). However, I still need to
> parse the string as with the GET message.
>
> Last but least, I need to support GET form-data (to support file
> uploads), which leaves us with a third type of argument syntax.
>
> Are there any methodes that I can use (now) to parse these POST
> requests, or do I have to write a parser myself? Will Apache::Request be
> able to handle these cases? (Because if it will, I can probably settle
> for args() and content() now, and use my own parser until
> Apache::Request shows up.)
CGI.pm should be able to do all of the above .... and many of its methods
are the same as Apache::Request's.
HTH,
- nick
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin {|8^)>
