Re: CGI package recommendation

Although I was a big proponent of CGI because of its simplicity, I now use Mojolicious and I am very pleased with it. It's not that mojolicious is not "simple". It's that it needs to have its own webserver running. And it's prefered to have a webserver like nginx or apache proxy to that. Which is fairly simple if your host allows you access. But prohibitive in most free, share-hosting environments. I have switched to mojolicious when I got a VPS (paid server with full control via ssh access) instead of the free shared web-hosting.

Comment on Re: CGI package recommendation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: CGI package recommendation by BernieC (Pilgrim) on Jan 24, 2021 at 18:59 UTC
Thanks for the advice, but I'm using a shared-hosting environment and so I don't have my own webserver. I cannot even install modules. {although I'll ask the sysops if they are willing to install a CPAN module.} It'll be a very low traffic "site" and the web pages that the user will see will be pretty simple.	[reply]
Re^3: CGI package recommendation by bliako (Abbot) on Jan 24, 2021 at 19:44 UTC
It's worth asking Monks which are more experts with Mojolicious whether it can indeed be run in this environment without privileges/access and how. If not, the CGI is not bad at all and will be fine. But do read some more on caveats and alternatives: CGI::Alternatives	[reply]
Re^3: CGI package recommendation by Bod (Parson) on Jan 24, 2021 at 19:56 UTC
I too operate a number of websites on shared hosting so feel your pain. For a long time I used CGI for processing input from a web form but never to generate the HTML. However, I ran into a number of random errors that I could not debug. I suspect they were more to do with the hosting environment than the module. The result was I wrote my own code to deal with form and image uploads instead.	[reply]