Re: CGI.pm renaming (was Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6))

Hi, Jacinta Richardson wrote: > Juerd wrote: [CGI.pm et al] >> Yes, this needs to be redesigned completely. Are you volunteering? > > Is this still needed? If so yes, I'm now volunteering! Where'd you > like me to start? I'd like to point out that this might be a good idea for a perl6 microgra

Re: CGI.pm renaming (was Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6))

At 10:23 AM +0200 4/15/07, Juerd Waalboer wrote: Please read these two posts to this list: http://groups.google.nl/group/perl.perl6.users/browse_thread/thread/845b10b8ed7266/a209deddfadad19b?lnk=st&q=juerd+web+development&rnum=1#a209deddfadad19b http://groups.google.nl/group/perl.perl6.users/brow

Re: CGI.pm renaming (was Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6))

Darren Duncan skribis 2007-04-14 23:37 (-0700): > Presumably Juerd will get back to these when he has the tuits, but > meanwhile you could try improving what he started. Indeed. Please read these two posts to this list: http://groups.google.nl/group/perl.perl6.users/browse_thread/thread/845b10b8

Re: CGI.pm renaming (was Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6))

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 "text

CGI.pm renaming (was Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6))

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 "textfield" isn't it? So that would make this one "passwor

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Randal L. Schwartz wrote: ""A" == "A Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "A> * Randal L. Schwartz [2006-09-20 19:30]: "Fagyal" == Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: yet I never needed those HTML generating methods. You've never made a sticky form

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

* Randal L. Schwartz [2006-09-22 01:25]: > HTML::FillInForm, HTML::Widget, CGI::FormBuilder were *not* in > core. CGI.pm was. One stop shopping. Easy to describe to > people. That still doesn’t prove that tight coupling is necessary between parameter parsing and HTML generation. The concept of c

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Randal L. Schwartz wrote: And MUMBLE better be included *with* Perl6. I disagree. Anything that can be left out of the base Perl6 distro should be. * It's too inflexible, so it doesn't allow for a new improved module to come along to replace it. * It requires more from the Perl6 maintaine

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Randal L. Schwartz skribis 2006-09-21 9:15 (-0700): > We need the same thing for Perl6: "If you're going to do simple web stuff, > please use MUMBLE module". And MUMBLE better have tight integration of param > processing and sticky form generation, as well as good header generation for > cookies

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

> ""A" == "A Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "A> * Randal L. Schwartz [2006-09-20 19:30]: >> "Fagyal" == Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> yet I never needed those HTML generating methods. >> >> You've never made a sticky form then. "A> False dilemma. You can create stic

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

On 9/21/06, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Because they speak the same language. That is: they know about arguments passed via forms, and the preferred output language (xhtml? html?). Ah, I didn't think of that. My bad. Roles for all these things sound great to me. :-) Aankhen

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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.

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

On 9/20/06, Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And maybe expand Web::HTML something like: Web::Markup::HTML Web::Markup::XHTML Web::Markup::WML etc... But that's might as well be too much. If those are modules to generate markup, I don't see why they should under the Web namespace. Ther

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

* Randal L. Schwartz [2006-09-20 19:30]: > "Fagyal" == Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> yet I never needed those HTML generating methods. > > You've never made a sticky form then. False dilemma. You can create sticky forms conveniently without using CGI.pm’s HTML generation stuff. Y

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

> "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 almost like "echo" Fagyal> in PH

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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 t

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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":

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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 b

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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 h

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Juerd wrote: 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. Actually me, too. Not with CGI.pm, though. I tend to use CGI::Simple for form/param parsing, Template.pm for temp

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Thomas Wittek wrote: [...] But I think that it would be a good idea to create a clean, "servlety" foundation, upon which you still can implement a 200 lines CGI.pm/Web.pm/foo.pm that covers the most common web-request tasks. That sounds nice. - Cs.

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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 gen

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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. H

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Ian Langworth skribis 2006-09-19 19:02 (-0700): > It sounds like the name of HTTP is more appropriate: > HTTP::Request > ...uri, pathinfo, params, method, headers, etc. > (etc) Well, yes and no. HTTP is today's web protocol standard, but may not be with us forever. I was thinking of getting

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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. HTTP::Response::JSON

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

Mark Stosberg skribis 2006-09-16 22:04 (-0500): > As far as I'm aware, no work on CGI::Session for Perl 6 has started yet. I'm happy about that, because this module must not have "CGI" in its name. -- korajn salutojn, juerd waalboer: perl hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

> > 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 > tha

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

> 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 c

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

* 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

Re: CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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 C

CGI Session management (was Re: the CGI.pm in Perl 6)

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 man