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^)>