in reply to unix to win2k transfer

You have quite a long road ahead of you. Mainly because it looks like the original scripts are Perl4.

Hopefully you will drop the push and require and replace them with: 

use lib '/infosrv/ns-home/cgi-bin/';
use cgi-lib;

[download]
but cgi-lib sucks - use CGI or FastCGI . . .but that's beside the point. Why move from *nix in the first place? There can't possibly be a convincing enough reason not to upgrade to the lastest version of Perl, and build mod_perl into an Apache server. I have no problems with Win2000, I just feel that moving web scripts to another platform is silly. They are accessible by all platforms. Hell, run two web servers!

I wish you luck!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: unix to win2k transfer
by grinder (Bishop) on Sep 10, 2001 at 20:07 UTC

    The person may not have a choice. The Unix server may be running on proprietary hardware that has a non-negligeable annual maintenance fee. Maybe the bean counters thought that was an expense they could cut. Maybe they thought that W2K on commodity hardware would be cheaper in the long run (for some definitions of "cheaper" and "long run" that I doubt coincide with mine).

    It may be too late for the anonymonk to do anything about it. Looks like (s)he's coming from a Netscape environment, not Apache.

    Pointing out how hopeless cgi-lib.pl really is may not do anything, apart from convincing clueless managers that this Perl stuff is pretty whacky, and maybe we better replace it with ASP, or Java, or some other buzzword du jour.

    All I can suggest is to try and help the person resolve the porting issues, and then we'll see about converting them to CGI.pm. How much code are we talking about, anyway?

    --
    g r i n d e r
[reply]
      only about a dozen or so scripts, most of which will require the same modifications to update to Perl5.

      Thanks!

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom