On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:14:56PM -0800, Joshua Chamas wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Could you please explain the differences between
> > CGI Raw and CGI.pm? I'm using oo method of
> > CGI.
> The Raw CGI test makes no use of CGI.pm, just issues raw print
> statements that sets up the right CGI headers. Please note that the
> number that I reported showed a difference of .00065 seconds of system
> time per request between CGI.pm & Raw CGI HelloWorld, so I wouldn't much
> worry about the environment overhead.
Oh you meant cgi. CGI should be reserved for CGI.pm stuff.
I don't use CGI's html functions at all because I just
don't see much saving in terms of typing. I guess I am
in between your 'RAW' case and CGI.pm case
I only use CGI's param,header,cookie and redirect functions
and DISABLE_UPLOADS and POST_MAX variables. Given that
real handler is the second best performer after static
html I wonder how big of a step from using Registry to
writing a handler. I know I can rely on CGI because
it is time tested. I wonder whether there are CGI equivalent
modules if I don't use handler. I read earlier
that CGI alternatives have some problems.
>
> If you are using CGI.pm object methods, I would worry about calling
> all those methods to build your HTML and if you are performance
> minded, I would use them frugally.
>
> --Josh
