in reply to CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder

Here's a previous thread you might find relevant: perl-based CMS

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: CGI::Application vs CGI::Builder
by Anonymous Monk on May 03, 2004 at 13:42 UTC
    I used CGI::Builder::CgiAppAPI to convert an intranet application (43 runmodes), that now is working fine under Apache::CGI::Builder: the process was quite simple but very annoying.

    The good things are:
    - almost 90% of conversion changes were just search and replace in the application module
    - I can take off 20% of the old code not needed anymore
    - I can split the module into more useful super classes (really rehusable) using overrunning
    - Apache::CGI::Builder is really nice

    The bad things are:
    - I had to run all the run modes, one by one, to make sure I didn't forget anything. The hints that CGI::Builder::CgiAppAPI gives you are just run-time hints. I don't know if it would be possible but I'd like to have compile-time hints or at least some automatic-all-run-modes checking to avoid to do it manually.
    - HTML::Template is my favourite templating system and it is supported by CGI::Builder::HTMLtmpl (with even more encapsulation than in CGI::Application), but it appears to be limited comparing it with CGI::Builder::Magic. Since the author is the same (for Template::Magic and CGI::Builder), I have the insane suspect that he did it intentionally :-@

      How does CGI::Builder provide better superclassing than CGI::Application? I'm really confused about this statement. My runmodes go through two superclasses (at least!) before hitting CGI::Application, each providing some layer of useful stuff.

      ------
      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