At 3:21 PM +0200 9/12/06, Thomas Wittek wrote:
So I think that there should be a (well designed) module for those lower
level (donkeywork) tasks and only for those (so definitely no

I strongly suggest that if we're going to do things this way, which sounds like a good idea, then the new and well designed lower level module should NOT be named "" ... if nothing else, it is because that name sends the wrong message in today's age.

The word "CGI" generally speaks to an old, weak, and relatively inefficient technology ... modern proper stuff does not spin off a separate process for each server request; it reuses an existing server ala mod_perl.

But this module in question should provide a low level layer that one can use without changes regardless of whether the script is running in CGI mode, or under mod_perl or ISAPI or as a pure-Perl server or on the command-line.

As for "", that may work better, but are there any reasonably conceivable uses outside HTTP/HTTPS stuff that may invalidate the name?

Either way, I agree; no HTML generation in this core module. Just management of our server-side view of web client input and output.

In fact, it may borrow a few pages of design from LWP if applicable?

-- Darren Duncan

Reply via email to