Re: CGI modules?

What's wrong with CGI.pm? It's dynamically loaded, so anything you don't use, you don't pay for. Just ignore the parts of it you don't need. And of all the modules, it's clearly the most mature, well-used, well-documented, and plenty of examples, not to mention being installed everywhere.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Comment on Re: CGI modules?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: CGI modules? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jan 29, 2006 at 00:13 UTC
CGI::Simple is a drop-in replacement for the CGI parsing part of CGI.pm, avoids dealing in HTML generation, passes all of CGI.pm’s applicable tests, plus an additional large batch of its own, has a much smaller and much cleaner codebase, and is quite a bit faster. I say, why not? Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^3: CGI modules? by Copper Maiden (Acolyte) on Jan 29, 2006 at 01:35 UTC
CGI::Simple seems to be exactly what I'm looking for, thanks. And one more question, what are the differences between CGI::Lite and CGI::Simple? x_x	[reply]
Re^4: CGI modules? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jan 29, 2006 at 02:52 UTC
To me, the major difference is the interface: CGI::Simple works exactly like CGI.pm – and therefore, exactly like any number of other modules such as Apache::Request which also mimic CGI.pm. CGI::Lite uses a very different API. That alone means I’d be reluctant to use it. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]