in reply to Re: Offline alternatives to Apache for CGI testing
in thread Offline alternatives to Apache for CGI testing

To give some credit to the OP, Apache isn't an install-and-forget software by any means. It's been quite complex for well, since forever, but over the years, there's a lot more detail to manage and take care of, particularly on initial config.

I'm not putting the software down, as I used it for many years. However, Windows administrators don't normally have to deal with so much config file manipulation, so I understand the concern here. The non-working part is surely due to mis-config of options, but I digress.

OP here wants a one-off fire-and-forget web server that will present Perl scripts properly within web pages, and personally, I'm curious to find out if anyone else has a solution to this.

  • Comment on Re^2: Offline alternatives to Apache for CGI testing

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Offline alternatives to Apache for CGI testing
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 11, 2017 at 22:02 UTC

    OP here wants a one-off fire-and-forget web server that will present Perl scripts properly within web pages, and personally, I'm curious to find out if anyone else has a solution to this.

    Thats not what he says he wants :)

    Even apacheet requires configuration ( two paths). Here is another "simpler" version of apacheet no webserver(apache)? no problem! test .cgi with Plack/plackup

    To give some credit to the OP, ... I understand the concern here

    Both credits and concern? Spoiler!

    The only reason to use apache on test/dev machine, is if you plan to deploy to apache (or your other test server is broken ), in which case figuring out how to run it is paramount

    The only reason to whine about it when asking for alternatives is if you're hoping someone will hold your hand and fix it

    Whining is for puppies

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom