At 12:53 PM +1000 4/15/07, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
Juerd wrote:
Jacinta Richardson skribis 2006-09-21 0:13 (+1000):
My biggest gripe with CGI's html methods is the inconsistency in their
names. I use them every now and then, but I always have to go and look
up the documentation. It's
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
A == A Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A * Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com [2006-09-20 19:30]:
Fagyal == Fagyal Csongor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yet I never needed those HTML generating methods.
You've never made a
Aankhen skribis 2006-09-20 18:32 (-0700):
If those are modules to generate markup, I don't see why they should
under the Web namespace. There needs to be a Web.pm toolkit (or
something similar), but that's mostly an amalgamation of other
modules.
Because they speak the same language. That
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Fagyal == Fagyal Csongor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fagyal As a side note I also have to add that I really dislike the
Fagyal html-functions CGI.pm currently has. Creating the representation is
Fagyal the task of the designer, not the programmer. It's
Ian Langworth wrote:
It sounds like the name of HTTP is more appropriate:
HTTP::Request
...uri, pathinfo, params, method, headers, etc.
HTTP::Request::Session
...adds to HTTP::Request to provide session() method
HTTP::Response
...response code, content, headers, etc.
Fagyal Csongor schrieb:
Ian Langworth wrote:
A general, simple CGI handling module fits into 200 lines, including
POD.
[..]
You don't really need more. IMHO a CGI module
parses/preprocesses/decodes/etc. all incoming parameters (POST, GET,
COOKIES), and that's it.
I can support this
Fagyal Csongor skribis 2006-09-20 11:28 (+0200):
You rarely do real HTTP handling when you use CGI.
You may not, but many people do a lot of these things.
And when you don't, the datastructures are currently parsed and filled
anyway, so I don't know why you say it'd be too inefficient.
A
Erm...
Sorry for the bandwith usage again, but what about something like
class CGI
is CGI::Base
does CGI::ParamParser
does CGI::HTML
{ ... }
?
To make CGI.pm kind of backward compatible, but separates the layers.
(Please excuse my bad syntax/semantics.)
- Fagzal
Fagyal Csongor wrote:
# imagine something like:
$cgi = new CGI;
$html = HTML::CGI-new($cgi);
$html-popup_menu( ... ); # I won't do this, but others might... :)
My biggest gripe with CGI's html methods is the inconsistency in their
names. I use them every now and then, but I always have
Jacinta Richardson skribis 2006-09-21 0:13 (+1000):
My biggest gripe with CGI's html methods is the inconsistency in their
names. I use them every now and then, but I always have to go and look
up the documentation. It's textfield isn't it? So that would make
this one passwordfield: nope,
Juerd wrote:
[...]
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
I agree completely. In that vein, I think that one thing a lot of web
developers would like to have available more easily would be session
management. In PHP it's as simple as $_SESSION['key'] = 'value'. I
understand that CGI.pm is a fundemantally different concept from PHP and
that
* Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-12 12:05]:
There are *so* many ways to do session handling that lugging
them all into CGI.pm will just make a mess.
Agreed, but maybe this is a case where it would make sense to do
something like what Perl 6 does for OO vs Perl 5, ie provide one
good
F.ex., I could imagine that CGI.pm6 would provide a framework for
Please, please, please, let us not call this module CGI or anything
closely resembling it. This will only fool a lot of inexperienced Perl 5
programmers, and start a lot of fuss about the interface being
incompatible.
And, of
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 13:31:55 -0700, Michael Snoyman wrote:
I agree completely. In that vein, I think that one thing a lot of web
developers would like to have available more easily would be session
management. In PHP it's as simple as $_SESSION['key'] = 'value'. I
understand that
If Perl6 CGI.pm is intended to be the successor of the P5 CGI.pm (the
quasi-standard for Perl web programming) is should really get a modern
design.
I agree completely. In that vein, I think that one thing a lot of web
developers would like to have available more easily would be session
16 matches
Mail list logo
