<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
>
>
>
>
>
