Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Fagyal" == Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Fagyal> As a side note I also have to add that I really dislike the
Fagyal> "html-functions" CGI.pm currently has. Creating the representation is
Fagyal> the task of the designer, not the programmer. It's almost like "echo"
Fagyal> in PHP :))) I used CGI.pm with simple cgi scripts, with Apache::ASP,
Fagyal> mod_perl and FCGI, I used CGI::Cookie, etc. yet I never needed those
Fagyal> HTML generating methods. To me, <imho>it feels wrong that they are
Fagyal> there</imho>.
You've never made a sticky form then.
Erm... what makes you think so?
Not with CGI.pm, but I use HTML::FillInForm for the basic cases (which
is simply a per-page config parameter in my framework, and which has the
advantage of using simple HTML markup without any coding), and my own
module (PET::Filter::UtilXmlMap) for more comples cases when forms are
pre-populated from DB. E.g.:
<ehtml:bodySelect array=subst.pages name="page" selected=QUERY.page />
(Note: this generates [% Util.ehtml.bodySelect('array', subst.pages,
'name', 'page', selected, QUERY.page %] at compile time.)
I think JSP tag libraries had a too strong effect on me :)
- Fagzal
