Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[Martin McGrath]

On 26 August 2016 at 10:54,  wrote:

> Dear everybody,
>
> Sorry for my late reply. Thank you all very much for your answers. I am a
> little bit sad that the main answers seems not see CGI Application as an a
> up-to-date alternative for programming web applications at the moment. But
> of course the development tools in perl has to go forward. For me I will
> start now first with learning CGI (I bought the o'reilly book CGI
> Programming with Perl). I know that the CGI module is for many people also
> not an up-to-date solution any more and it was deleted for this reason from
> the core modules. But for me as a beginner in this topic I think it could
> be helpful to understand the more modern interfaces later (like psgi or
> plack) or the modern frameworks. Furthermore almost every hosting providers
> support the CGI interface so that deploying is much more easy than with the
> more modern frameworks (although there seems to be a solution to deploy
> them as CGI). Last but not least is the core of CGI still maintained
> (except the html functions that I do not use) and over the years very well
> tested and important Perl flagships as Foswiki use it, too.
>
> Perhaps later if I am a little bit more experienced with the CGI interface
> and the CGI module I could help to modernise CGI::Application but at the
> moment I have unfortunately still not the capability for that.
>
> >From the modern frameworks I would prefer Catalyst at the moment because
> it is well documented ( I always like learning with books) and the syntax
> is for my taste the more perlish compared to Dancer2 and Mojolicious. But I
> havn't devoted myself very much to it because for my purposes the modern
> frameworks feel like an overkill..
>
> Again thank you very much for your help,
>

Hi everyone,

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this thread. In the near future an
updated version of CGI::Application will hit the CPAN, yes it's long
overdue, a great deal of things going on both at work and in my personal
life. Once this is live it'll close off a few of the open tickets (rt.cpan
and github), I'll then review and prioritise the rest.

I consider the maintenance of the module to be in support of all of the
legacy code which depends upon it, however I agree with previous statements
about using modern frameworks, such as Mojolicious and Dancer2. PRs for new
features are welcome.

Existing CGI::Application code can be ported to run under Mojolicious
easily:

https://github.com/kraih/mojo/wiki/Porting-CGI-Application

Rereading the CGI documentation I think goes as far as it can to suggest
that it not be used for new developments, mentioning that recent updates
can even break backwards compatibility in some places, meaning code
rework/retesting, something which we're all keen to avoid.

https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/CGI/lib/CGI.pod
https://metacpan.org/pod/CGI::Alternatives

Max, I can understand your decision, CGI.pm is still out there, however a
great deal of the pages I see people link to that teach it's use are out of
date or suffer other issues. The frameworks mentioned above have very good
documentation, even for beginners in web development. IMHO you should
consider looking at Mojolicious::Lite, the brief example on the first page
of the website (http://mojolicious.org/) is a gentle introduction, followed
by well documented tutorials (http://mojolicious.org/perldoc ->
http://mojolicious.org/perldoc/Mojolicious/Guides/Tutorial) I don't think
that the learning curve for this is significantly different than the
CGI/CGI::Application combination.

Thanks

Martin

#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####

Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[max . augsburg]

Dear everybody,

Sorry for my late reply. Thank you all very much for your answers. I am a 
little bit sad that the main answers seems not see CGI Application as an a 
up-to-date alternative for programming web applications at the moment. But of 
course the development tools in perl has to go forward. For me I will start now 
first with learning CGI (I bought the o'reilly book CGI Programming with Perl). 
I know that the CGI module is for many people also not an up-to-date solution 
any more and it was deleted for this reason from the core modules. But for me 
as a beginner in this topic I think it could be helpful to understand the more 
modern interfaces later (like psgi or plack) or the modern frameworks. 
Furthermore almost every hosting providers support the CGI interface so that 
deploying is much more easy than with the more modern frameworks (although 
there seems to be a solution to deploy them as CGI). Last but not least is the 
core of CGI still maintained (except the html functions that I do not use)
  and over the years very well tested and important Perl flagships as Foswiki 
use it, too.

Perhaps later if I am a little bit more experienced with the CGI interface and 
the CGI module I could help to modernise CGI::Application but at the moment I 
have unfortunately still not the capability for that.

>From the modern frameworks I would prefer Catalyst at the moment because it is 
>well documented ( I always like learning with books) and the syntax is for my 
>taste the more perlish compared to Dancer2 and Mojolicious. But I havn't 
>devoted myself very much to it because for my purposes the modern frameworks 
>feel like an overkill..

Again thank you very much for your help,

Max

#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####

Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[Stephen Carville]

On 08/11/2016 03:13 AM, max.augsb...@gmx.de wrote:
> 
> Dear CGI Application Experts,
> 
> I am a Newbie in Perl and Web Programming. I tested a little bit Dancer2, but 
> I liked CGI::Application from the design much much more because it feels for 
> me more perlish.
> 
> But what me confuse a little bit is, that the last stable version is from the 
> year 2011. Please allow me a straight and honest question: Does it make sense 
> yet to learn CGI::Application or should I better go ahead to a modern 
> framework as Dancer2 although CGI::Application to me appeals much more? Is 
> CGI::Application still active and will there be new stable versions on CPAN 
> in the near future (the devel version that contains also one security bugfix 
> is more than one year old)? Or is CGI::Application over the many years simply 
> ready programmed so that only minor bugfixes are necessary?
> 
> I really hope, that the wonderful CGI App has a future. I think this 
> framework has such a wonderful and specific design so that it really sets 
> itself apart from the "big modern" modern frameworks (Dancer2, Mojolicious, 
> Catalyst) which are all very similar and so that there is real need for it. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> Max

Personally, I really like CGI::Application with HTML::Template.  That
combination is straight-forward with no BS.  The support bothers me a
bit too but I only write web stuff as ancillary to my primary
professions of systems and network engineering.  For that CGI::App
serves me well.  If I was a real web developer the support issue might
bother me too.

-- 
Stephen Carville
Serf Without Portfolio
800.537.3821 x1326
scarvi...@nospam.lereta.com
-
There is no "I" in Team but there is in Integrity.

#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####

Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* max.augsb...@gmx.de [11/08/2016 12:13] :
>
> Please allow me a straight and honest question: Does it make sense
> yet to learn CGI::Application or should I better go ahead to a modern
> framework as Dancer2 although CGI::Application to me appeals much more?

Like Richard, I've moved on from CGI::Application, using either pure Plack
or Dancer2 (both of which I consider to be CGI::Application's spiritual
sons to some extent).

I still keep track of any releases (although that's mainly because I
maintain Fedora's CGI-Application package) but my interest in writing
CGI scripts now that I've used PSGI is more or less dead.

Emmanuel

#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####

Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[Bob McClure Jr]

(I'm not nuts about top posting, but I'll follow suit here.)

I've been using Titanium which pulls together CGI::App, HTML::Template
and a few other cats and dogs.  I really like it.  I use Rose::DB
where I need that part.

I've been looking at Mojolicious, but have been unable to get my brain
wrapped around it.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 04:19:20PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> Max,
> 
> As far as I know it is not being developed any more. I don't even know 
> if it's being maintained. The list is pretty quiet these days and I 
> assume most have moved on to other frameworks or out of Perl entirely. 
> My main app is based on CGI::App so I still use it, but don't do 
> anything new with it - I moved to Dancer2 for new stuff. Catalyst always 
> felt like overkill for the types of things I do, but once I got used to 
> the D2 syntax I found it to be a very enjoyable experience. YMMV of 
> course, but if you keep just framework-specific stuff in the D2 classes, 
> most of your code is in your own classes anyway so is 
> framework-independent. If you really like CGI::App maybe you could look 
> at taking it over and modernising it? I imagine it would be quite a big 
> task though. Ron Savage already did something similar by forking 
> CGI::App to CGI::Snapp a few years ago but I don't know if he still 
> maintains it.
> 
> 
> On 11/08/2016 11:13, max.augsb...@gmx.de wrote:
> > Dear CGI Application Experts,
> >
> > I am a Newbie in Perl and Web Programming. I tested a little bit Dancer2, 
> > but I liked CGI::Application from the design much much more because it 
> > feels for me more perlish.
> >
> > But what me confuse a little bit is, that the last stable version is from 
> > the year 2011. Please allow me a straight and honest question: Does it make 
> > sense yet to learn CGI::Application or should I better go ahead to a modern 
> > framework as Dancer2 although CGI::Application to me appeals much more? Is 
> > CGI::Application still active and will there be new stable versions on CPAN 
> > in the near future (the devel version that contains also one security 
> > bugfix is more than one year old)? Or is CGI::Application over the many 
> > years simply ready programmed so that only minor bugfixes are necessary?
> >
> > I really hope, that the wonderful CGI App has a future. I think this 
> > framework has such a wonderful and specific design so that it really sets 
> > itself apart from the "big modern" modern frameworks (Dancer2, Mojolicious, 
> > Catalyst) which are all very similar and so that there is real need for it.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Max
> >   
> 
> -- 
> Richard Jones
> 

Cheers,
-- 
Bob McClure, Jr. Bobcat Open Systems, Inc.
b...@bobcatos.com http://www.bobcatos.com
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his
righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person
according to what he has done."  Romans 2:5-6 (NIV)

#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####

Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[Richard Jones]

Max,

As far as I know it is not being developed any more. I don't even know 
if it's being maintained. The list is pretty quiet these days and I 
assume most have moved on to other frameworks or out of Perl entirely. 
My main app is based on CGI::App so I still use it, but don't do 
anything new with it - I moved to Dancer2 for new stuff. Catalyst always 
felt like overkill for the types of things I do, but once I got used to 
the D2 syntax I found it to be a very enjoyable experience. YMMV of 
course, but if you keep just framework-specific stuff in the D2 classes, 
most of your code is in your own classes anyway so is 
framework-independent. If you really like CGI::App maybe you could look 
at taking it over and modernising it? I imagine it would be quite a big 
task though. Ron Savage already did something similar by forking 
CGI::App to CGI::Snapp a few years ago but I don't know if he still 
maintains it.


On 11/08/2016 11:13, max.augsb...@gmx.de wrote:
> Dear CGI Application Experts,
>
> I am a Newbie in Perl and Web Programming. I tested a little bit Dancer2, but 
> I liked CGI::Application from the design much much more because it feels for 
> me more perlish.
>
> But what me confuse a little bit is, that the last stable version is from the 
> year 2011. Please allow me a straight and honest question: Does it make sense 
> yet to learn CGI::Application or should I better go ahead to a modern 
> framework as Dancer2 although CGI::Application to me appeals much more? Is 
> CGI::Application still active and will there be new stable versions on CPAN 
> in the near future (the devel version that contains also one security bugfix 
> is more than one year old)? Or is CGI::Application over the many years simply 
> ready programmed so that only minor bugfixes are necessary?
>
> I really hope, that the wonderful CGI App has a future. I think this 
> framework has such a wonderful and specific design so that it really sets 
> itself apart from the "big modern" modern frameworks (Dancer2, Mojolicious, 
> Catalyst) which are all very similar and so that there is real need for it.
>
> Best wishes,
> Max
>   
>   
>
> #  CGI::Application community mailing list  
> ####
> ##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
> ##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
> ####
> ##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
> ##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
> ####
> 
>

-- 
Richard Jones


#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####

[cgiapp] CGI::Application or Dancer2, Mojolicious et similar

[max . augsburg]

Dear CGI Application Experts,

I am a Newbie in Perl and Web Programming. I tested a little bit Dancer2, but I 
liked CGI::Application from the design much much more because it feels for me 
more perlish.

But what me confuse a little bit is, that the last stable version is from the 
year 2011. Please allow me a straight and honest question: Does it make sense 
yet to learn CGI::Application or should I better go ahead to a modern framework 
as Dancer2 although CGI::Application to me appeals much more? Is 
CGI::Application still active and will there be new stable versions on CPAN in 
the near future (the devel version that contains also one security bugfix is 
more than one year old)? Or is CGI::Application over the many years simply 
ready programmed so that only minor bugfixes are necessary?

I really hope, that the wonderful CGI App has a future. I think this framework 
has such a wonderful and specific design so that it really sets itself apart 
from the "big modern" modern frameworks (Dancer2, Mojolicious, Catalyst) which 
are all very similar and so that there is real need for it. 

Best wishes,
Max
 
 

#  CGI::Application community mailing list  
####
##  To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options,  ##
##  visit:  http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp##
####
##  Web archive:   http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/   ##
##  Wiki:  http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
####