Fagyal Csongor skribis 2006-09-20 15:43 (+0200):
Inefficient was probably a bad choice of word.
I would rather say: I would not like to see Perl6's CGI.pm as a monster
module, which has one part everyone uses, and one hundred other parts
that some uses, because I feel those parts should be put into other
Perl 6's Web toolkit, even with all these classes, is likely to be much
lighter than Perl 5's CGI.pm with :standard.
I guess that's one of the reasons we are heading from 5 to 6 :)
But note that especially if it is a well designed bundle of
classes/roles, you can pick exactly those things that you need, and
leave all others out. That's part of the reason why you should separate
And here is another reason :)
If we talk about nicely structured OO, I can see a few ways:
- CGI.pm include something like "CGI::HTML", to get rid of the HTML
generating part, or maybe even separating CGI::HTML and CGI::Request
s:g/CGI/Web/, please! mod_perl has nothing to do with CGI (except
perhaps for its compatibility syntax), and neither does HTTP::Daemon. We
should write generic code, suitable for any implementation.
I'm thinking of:
Web::Init::CGI # Initializer for CGI requests
Web::Init::FastCGI # Initializer for FastCGI requests
Web::Init::ModPerl # Initializer for ModPerl requests
Web::Request # Request objects
Web::Response # Response objects
Web::Session # Session objects
Web::HTML # HTML generation
Web::Util # HTML-entities, URI-encoding, etc
Web # utility module that mostly loads other modules
A very sound idea. Reorganising the CPAN namespace :) (This
CGI/HTTP/LWP/HTML/etc. got a bit confusing as it grew.)
I would say, maybe add "Web::Tools::*" so that others can add various
useful (and not that useful) modules without mixing up everything.
And maybe expand Web::HTML something like:
But that's might as well be too much.
So is Web::Init::* class supposed to be selected by Web, and
Web::Init(::*) used by e.g. Web::Request & Web::Response, so it all
Yes. I'm talking about a web development toolkit, that does at least
what CGI.pm did, and not about CGI as a namespace, because I think
that's an incredibly bad thing anyway.
I absolutely agree.