Is it worth using CGI::Cookie with CGI::Minimal?

rrwo has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I'm working on some code using HTML::Template, and I've decided it makes more sense (in theory) to use CGI::Minimal rather than CGI, since I'm not really generating HTML code.

But I'm using cookies. And CGI::Cookie appears to make use of the CGI module. So performance-wise, I'm still loading the CGI module (even if I'm only using a few subroutines) when I use CGI::Cookie.

So is it even worthwhile to use CGI::Minimal in this case? I may as well just use CGI.

Or am I missing something about how Perl loads modules? I don't see it as much of a performance gain to parse an entire module for a few subroutines than to load the module.

Comment on Is it worth using CGI::Cookie with CGI::Minimal?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Is it worth using CGI::Cookie with CGI::Minimal? by mattr (Curate) on Mar 01, 2002 at 10:49 UTC
Recently there was a discussion about this concerning a new module proposal. But it is fine to go ahead and use CGI.pm since the module is very efficient and only loads the functionality that is required by the code.	[reply]
Re: Is it worth using CGI::Cookie with CGI::Minimal? by shotgunefx (Parson) on Mar 01, 2002 at 08:16 UTC
I see that it uses CGI::Utils, but I don't see anywhere in the source that CGI::Cookie uses CGI.pm I see this as well. Although CGI::Cookie is intended to be used in conjunction with CGI.pm (and is in fact used by it internally), you can use this module independently. -Lee "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."	[reply]