in reply to Re: PSGI / Plack
in thread PSGI / Plack

So here's something that I've been meaning to clarify for myself.

If I write an application for Mojolicious, which itself supports CGI, FastCGI, a Mojolicious-bundled server, and Plack, and I deploy the application with FastCGI, is there any benefit to pulling back and redeploying it on top of Plack? My understanding of the Mojolicious framework is that it should just work, regardless of the back end, as long as the back end happens to be based on either CGI, FastCGI, or Plack.

I understand that if I were to move to a different environment not supported directly by my framework Plack would be beneficial, as it supports a greater variety of servers and back-ends. But it seems to me it's one of those things that's available when I need it, and as long as I stick to a framework that supports it I can always migrate when I do need it.

Is this reasonable?


Dave

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: PSGI / Plack
by grantm (Parson) on Aug 19, 2011 at 00:55 UTC
    Is this reasonable?

    Yes, it is reasonable.

    Or to put it another way ... when creating a new web app, you should not use a low-level API like CGI, FastCGI or mod_perl. Instead you should either use a framework (Catalyst, Dancer, Mojolicious etc) or for very small projects, code to the PSGI API instead.