While I think this a great way to direct the program to do what needs to be done. As the program goes deeper and you keep using this. You start using subactions and sub subactions. It can get out of hand very quickly if you don't watch what your doing. Next thing you know your in it so deep you forget what goes where and how. There has to be a better way than this.# $apr is an Apache::Request object my $action = $apr->param('action'); # program is directed to do whats needed to be done through # action variable. # $t is an HTML::Template object - nuff said for ($action) { /FOO/ && do { &puke($t,$apr); last;}; /BAR/ && do { &swig_alcoholic_drink($t,$apr); last;}; } # the rest of the story of course
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: CGI/Mod Perl Application Design philosophy - which way do we go?
by lachoy (Parson) on Jun 01, 2001 at 07:36 UTC | |
by simon.proctor (Vicar) on Jun 03, 2001 at 00:58 UTC | |
Re: CGI/Mod Perl Application Design philosophy - which way do we go?
by jepri (Parson) on Jun 01, 2001 at 06:09 UTC | |
Re: CGI/Mod Perl Application Design philosophy - which way do we go?
by perrin (Chancellor) on Aug 15, 2001 at 21:40 UTC | |
Re: CGI/Mod Perl Application Design philosophy - which way do we go?
by princepawn (Parson) on Aug 16, 2001 at 05:32 UTC | |
Re: CGI/Mod Perl Application Design philosophy - which way do we go?
by princepawn (Parson) on Jun 01, 2001 at 03:38 UTC | |
Re: CGI/Mod Perl Application Design philosophy - which way do we go?
by princepawn (Parson) on Jun 01, 2001 at 03:42 UTC | |
by DrZaius (Monk) on Jun 01, 2001 at 19:01 UTC |