Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

After a very cursory examination, I would be leery. C::A has a lot of mileage behind it. It's very stable and has a huge following. It also has been extensively testing with both mod_perl 1 and 2.

That said, I would give it a whirl. The conversion process looks to be both simple and well-thought out. If it works for you, then go for it!

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

Comment on Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder by perrin (Chancellor) on May 02, 2004 at 03:57 UTC
I would describe it more like C::A has studiously ignored both mod_perl 1 and 2. It is simply a well-behaved CGI program, which makes it easy to run under Apache::Registry and ModPerl::Registry.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder by Anonymous Monk on May 03, 2004 at 08:29 UTC
You can use CGI::Builder under Apache::Registry and ModPerl::Registry as well, exactly like you do with C::A. The Apache::CGI::Builder adds just some feature you might appreciate under mod_perl ;-)	[reply]