Re: RFC: Apache::Request::Forms (or something similar)

[brian moseley]

On Thu, 18 May 2000, Peter Haworth wrote:

> I'm getting more confident about calling it
> Apache::Request::Form (no "s", for name similarity with
> CGI::Form) now. It is dependent on Apache::Request,
> after all, and reusing the CGI::Form name makes it look
> more general than it really is, not to mention any
> strange version skew effects CPAN.pm might introduce
> when people try to install things.

are you still planning to subclass Apache::Request? why?
what benefit do you get, if the only method from
Apache::Request you need is param()? unnecessary coupling..