Rhesa already answered your immediate question. I'm going to give you
some advice in terms of why what you're doing isn't the best.
In general, headers and footers should be managed by the templating
system you're using. For example, I use Template Toolkit (TT) and it
has the [% INCLUDE %]
On 8/4/06, Todd Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, as requested, I'm preparing a patch to add test cases for expanding
the scope of the error_mode functionality.
The hooks for prerun and postrun are pretty straight forward; they happen
during run() execution so it's a natural extension of the
All -
I'm looking for people who're using a load-balancer to find out
what they're using and why. I'm currently looking at Apache2.2's
mod_proxy_balancer, but my boss would like to have the warm fuzzy of
knowing I know people (other than a certain somebody who'll rename
nameless) who're using
On 7/31/06, Todd Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think CGI::Application's error handling would benefit greatly by
eval{}ing hooks. I routinely find myself executing code that might die()
inside of a setup() routine (and/or hook) and then having to set some kind
of flag so I can defer error
http://search.cpan.org/src/MARKSTOS/CGI-Application-4.06/t/10errormode.t
http://search.cpan.org/src/MARKSTOS/CGI-Application-4.06/test/TestApp11.pm
Basically, it wraps run() within an eval{} block. If run() dies (for
WHATEVER reason) and error_mode is set, then it is called with $@ as
its only
On 7/26/06, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It doesn't seem to be an exactly light solution, though. It in turn
loads Moose, Class::Delegator, Exception::Class, Hash::Merge and Scalar
Util.
Catalyst loads about half of those anyways, so the cost isn't -that-
high. Plus,
On 7/16/06, B10m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of just throwing more RAM and CPU power at it, I wondered if
there are better tricks available to speed up the site. Would it
help to move PostgreSQL to a different server? Maybe move some time
consuming processes to a different machine? Set up
On 7/5/06, Cees Hek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/5/06, Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:40 -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
This is another good reason to work on making CGI::Application easier to use
under mod_perl!
Is there something difficult about using it
There are ways to improve the caching used in Class::MOP - I can see if
$work will allow Stevan (author of Class::MOP and Moose) and I to work on
some details.
One thing I know that he and nothingmuch have been working on in Moose is
the ability to declare a class closed which will allow for
On 6/6/06, Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-05T12:29:51]
I'm with Michael, here. I don't buy the webserver/application error
description. 4xx is an error caused by a bad request from the client. 5xx is
a failure by the server to fulfill an
This sounds like a Safari bug, as amazing as that sounds. :-)
(Safari may be doing the right thing and everyone else has created a
looser de facto standard - this has been known to happen.)
Rob
On 6/6/06, Joel Gwynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't believe there could be a bug in CGI.pm, but
On 6/5/06, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you might get a File Not Found in the browser. The message
isn't quite accurate. The truth is unable to dispatch. But dispatching
URLS blurs the line between what corresponds to a real file and what
doesn't, and 404/File Not Found seems
Apache::Test? Or, are you looking for CGI::Application::Server? I'm
using that at work right now and it's great (though still under
development).
Rob
On 4/19/06, Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks
I seem to remember a recent module which implements a web server to help
testing
On 3/16/06, Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering if there is a best practice document, or suggestions on
best practice for creating a cgiapp application.
I have built several apps now, but all have been slightly different in
approach and ended up being quite different on
On 12/17/05, Brad Cathey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm writing a medium-sized web-based financial application that will have up
to 50 run modes between presenting empty forms, saving, editing, updating,
and deleting from them. Run modes *could* be broken down into groups, e.g.,
these 4 deal
I do the following:
use POSIX qw( strftime );
$self-header_add(
# date in the past
-expires = 'Sat, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT',
# always modified
-Last_Modified = strftime('%a, %d %b %Y %H:%M:%S GMT', gmtime),
# HTTP/1.0
-Pragma
On 12/13/05, Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rob
I would like to add a summary of my ideas here:
o My intention was to criticize your proposal, not you personally.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your criticisms of my
proposal. You didn't mean anything personally, so I
On 12/14/05, Michael Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:18:42 -0500
Cees Hek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...excellent explanation snipped...]
So I don't think Rob is talking about changing the whole philosophy of
CGI::Application, he is just talking about refactoring
On 12/12/05, Michael Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, essentially, CA does the following upon being used:
1) Load all the plugins requested. Each plugin will register as being
used for a specific purpose (which could be I add methods).
2) Verify that all required steps (such as
I don't get it. From my reading of the threads, no one is changing
CGI::Application, right? They're just building extra functionality in 3rd
party modules which people may find useful, but which you can choose to
ignore if you wish. For instance, I use regularly use C::A::Dispatch,
Oh, in that case, maybe a new framework is in order -
CGI::Application::PlusPlus anyone?
This is an internals change, not a new framework. This change is
completely and utterly backwards compatible.
I'm not sure why people are complaining so much.
Rob
On 12/13/05, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005-12-13, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't use any plugins, you'll get the current CA functionality.
If you do want to use plugins, you can override any single
functionality that CA uses. By itself.
I thought we
my ($tmp_fh, $tmp_filename) = tempfile('CGIuploaderX', UNLINK = 1
, DIR = File::Spec-tmpdir() );
Ill be submitting a patch for this next week.
Rob Kinyon suggested patching or upgrading File::Temp. That does seem
like a better place to fix the problem. It's also a wishlist item
The addon to what you are commenting on is if a run mode was defined
in the dispatch table the run mode is NOT extracted from the URL. I
think we moved passed this suggestion though.
It's not a suggestion - it's the entire point. If you have the runmode
be part of the URL, then it's nothing
On 12/12/05, Timothy Appnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/11/05, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you say the main code, are you referring to
CGI::Application::Dispatch here? It's not clear to me.
main-code == CGI/Application.pm
There is the current dispatching model within
On 12/12/05, Michael Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Do something as Rob suggests with a pluggable dispatch architecture.
In this case CA::Dispatch would probably become
CA::Plugin::Dispatch, anyway.
But C::A::D can't really be plugin since it sit's outside of C::A.
On 12/11/05, Timothy Appnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First I should say that I don't agree with how Rails is mixing action
(runmode) parameter validation and (presumably) error handling with
their dispatcher. I think your URI scheme should be sufficiently
unambiguous that the dispatcher
On 12/7/05, Sean Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Select id from table where name in ('q','w');
Yes, that will technically work. However, how does your solution tell
me which id corresponds to q and which to w?
Much better would be:
SELECT name, id
FROM table
WHERE name IN ( 'q', 'w' )
The
I suggest using whichever match comes first in the dispatch list. That
way it's easy to understand and control, no?
Yes. That's what Rails does, and it's easiest to work with.
Which is the correct URL? URL B uses the most precise match (longer
static string), but URL A uses fewer query
On 12/8/05, Jesse Erlbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- die_on_bad_params has been removed (yay!)
Does this mean that you can pass any bad param into the template and it
doesn't die? For me, this is the template equivalent of use strict.
Sometimes, a bad param isn't bad so much as unused. For
What are some of the best practices around splitting up the derived classes?
Do people create sub-applications for major pieces of functionality and
then tie them together with multiple instance scripts from a top level
page?
I create a subapp for every single unit of work. For example, I
www.extremeperl.org
On 12/8/05, Strong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to study the techniques used in web programming those that
involve Perl, Mysql, HTML or XML (depending in what is preferred in
the current world). I just would not to invent a wheel, I want to know
what the advanced
Yeah, I can see how pattern matching can assist in routing. I guess
that what bothers me about requirements is that (a) it looks like
validation/untainting (which it's not supposed to be), and (b) it puts
additional matching logic on the right hand side (which in my head is
sort of for
I like Capricorn, even if it's a little stuffy. Others could be
started with pac. Having a 'P' is what the cool kids do, plus pac
is cap backwards.
Packrat (packrats ... maybe not)
Pachyderm (The gigantic things you can do with C::A)
Pacem (You are more peaceful when using C::A)
capoera - our webapp-fu is stronger than yours
On 12/6/05, Bruce McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cap a pied
you're covered (Fr head to foot)
Bruce McKenzie
http://www.2MinuteExplainer.com
-
Web Archive:
On 12/4/05, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry. Here's the link I meant to send a second ago.
http://www.cgi-app.org/?DispatchDesign
Note: the Rails design works, not because it's a good routing design,
but because of the helper functions (which I prompted Catalyst to
add). You need
I would just like to note that speed and reliability are largely
dependent on the transaction profile of your application. If your
application is read heavy, MySQL is a sound choice. However if your
application consists mostly of database writes, PostgreSQL's MVCC [1]
architecture and
Has anyone looked at DBIx::Roles and how it implements a decorator on
the DBI connection? I think that this might be better for plugins
(even providing the base behavior as a default plugin) than mixins
(which I've never liked) or roles (which have conflict issues).
Rob
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=426774 asked a question about
CGI::Application and CGI::Carp. If you read towards the end of the
responses, you'll find a few people are saying that the error_mode()
patch seems to be trapping CGI::Carp fatalsToBrowser and not playing
nicely.
Has anyone else run
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=416355
Maybe we can have a CAP::GoogleSuggest? That would be very very cool ...
Rob
-
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/
Personally, I'd add a few changes:
1) Create a param(), not a direct object access. So, instead of
$self-{logger}, I'd use $self-param( 'logger' );
2) Create a logger() method that looks like:
sub logger { $_[0]-param( 'logger' ) }
So, now you have
$self-logger-error( Uh-oh );
The overhead is
Attributions??? Damnit! Uhh ... Yeah, I wrote E-Toys!! Yah, yah.
That's the ticket!
*grins*
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:48:20 -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:04:13 -0500, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, oh. I'm hoping perrin doesn't see
Uh, oh. I'm hoping perrin doesn't see this!! *laughs*
I'm dragonchild and I didn't write etoys - perrin did. I just happen
to be a really loud advocate of C::A on Perlmonks and I use etoys as a
really good example of what can be done.
The only sites I've ever written with C::A were at a small
MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't C::A all about not re-creating the wheel ;)
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:33:24 -0500, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Twiki is really annoying to admin, imho. It doesn't even have
automated user addition. It could seriously benefit from some work
If someone has a design, I have coding time.
Ideally, this should really be a collaborative effort. I'm a very
barebones developer, so I tend to not use a lot of extra modules. That
said, this probably should use all the bells and whistles. Class::DBI,
TT, CA::Apache, CA::Dispatch, CA::ValidateRM
In http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=411937, madhatter suggested using
the submit button to hold the runmode name. What do people think of
that?
-
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/
Doublecheck to see if you can put a -name or something like that in
the headers. I'm don't exactly remember what it is. IE doesn't use the
-type parameter correctly, especially not versions prior to 6.0.1.
Rob
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:49:13 -0800, Tim Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Below I have
I'd like to add a few items:
run (called from the Instance Script)
cgiapp_prerun
THE-RUNMODE-SELECTOR (if the value to runmodes() is a code reference)
THE-SELECTED-RUNMODE
THE-ERROR-MODE (if error_mode() is set and the runmode dies)
cgiapp_postrun
teardown
Rob
Would you be able to add a handle() method here that would dispatch to
the various runmodes, so that way I could just use my C::A child as a
mod_perl handler without thinking about it?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:29:23 -0400, Drew Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:44:12 -0400,
49 matches
Mail list logo
