|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister|
|( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )||Need Help??|
I have recently had a need to extend my CGI parameter validation and also presented a talk regarding my findings to a recent Birmingham Perl Mongers technical talk. While my research was incomplete and very much geared to what I wanted, it did highlight a few things.
There are currently at least 6 modules that are primarily aimed at parameter validation:
I personally found it difficult to understand why every single one had a different method of doing exactly the same thing. IMHO it would have been far better to have written plugins or subclasses to already existing modules. Each of the above have some great features that others don't, which makes it difficult for someone coming along afresh, to decided which one they want to use. Having plugins means you simply extend the ability to do another type of validation.
Thus a single interface package, would be able to drag in <package>::RegEx, <package>::TypeCheck, <package>::Required, etc to handle specific rules of validation. This could also then tie into Regexp::Common for a list of standardised regex constaints.
From my initial findings this is close to what CGI::Untaint is trying to do. However, the interface and error handling aren't what I would like. Data::FormValidator is better for that, although the interface to Params::Check I personally find easier to fit my mindset.
Another bit of food for thought: some currently complain (sometimes even blowing a fuse) regards CGI.pm being all things to all men (or women), and that it should be paired down. I personally only use params() and header(). Something like CGI::FormBuilder sounds like it's trying to do that too. To my mind content presentation and input validation are two separate things and if I am to only use the validation portion, why would I want to install yet another set of content presentation routines that I'll never use?
These have been my musing over the last few months and I have yet to come to any serious conclusions, so make of it what you will. However, I think it's going to be a while before I can finally decide on a single distribution to do the job.
In reply to CGI parameter Validation