Looking at your previous posts, I would suggest the reactions you got (i.e. "look at CPAN first") were based on:

1. You seem to much underestimate some parts - parsing XML is not easy.

2. You seem to be ignorant of the conventional standards for doing the not-directly-relevant stuff in your code - you should NOT parse CGI requests by hand, that's what CGI.pm is for - you should use strict and scope your variables accordingly.

3. You posted a bunch of code without any questions attached, but hinted that people here would be able to do better. So you got general hints (like I'm doing now) instead of comments on the parts that you might find more interesting. i.e. try to make your intentions clearer, and the responses will probably be more to your liking. For one thing, if your aXML parser is so fantastic, explain WHY.

Your badly formatted, globals-using, handmade-cgi-parsing, not easily comprehended code does not win people over by itself. If the idea is good, explain that. Plenty people here can help you fix up the code to be more robust, but they're not going to read all that stuff on the slim chance that they'll be able to completely comprehend it AND that you've got an insanely great idea. Again, explain what you're doing and why it's so good.

4. Completely new ideas generally mean you'll have to do a lot of work yourself. I don't see why the fact that there already is a lot existing code is in itself obstructing. It just makes it more work relative to reusing existing software but then don't complain that other people get the job done faster and possibly more robustly using the "old fashioned" (i.e. well-known, well-used and thoroughly debugged) modules :-)