perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Hilbig <thil...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [mp2] CGI.pm porting/co-existence questions
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:06:44 GMT
--- "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@p6m7g8.com> wrote:
> > 	fetching/setting cookies
> > 	fetching parameters (GET arguments or POST)
> use APR::Request::*
> Its faster as its in XS glue code.

That does look like it will do it just as simply as
CGI.pm.  APR::Request (libapreq) wasn't part of the
httpd or mp2 binary (ppm) so I hadn't noticed it
before.

> > 	simple HTML elements 
> > 	more complex HTML elements (forms, header/body)
> shouldn't you be using templates :)
> 
> Though to implement the template engine, I use
> CGI.pm for
> popup_menu() and the like.... Cleaner code, but more
> memory.

I don't have any duplication that would benefit from
templates.  popup_menu() is a good example where
CGI.pm shines.

> 
> I was not aware that Apache2::* or APR::* had
> methods for generating HTML.

I mean having to get into the html code instead of
using the CGI.pm to do it for you.  I tend not to take
advantage of the CGI.pm methods anyway.

> 
> > 	print vs. $r->print
> This is drastically faster.. especially if you use
> one print
> per request at the end and/or pass a reference to
> the scalar string.
> 
> > Also, the mp2 User's Guide (section 10.9.1) says
> > CGI.pm now takes $r as an argument to its new()
> > function.  What benefit is this?  Is it required? 
> For the most part its optional.
> You may need to look at PerlGlobalRequest
>
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/config/config.html#C_GlobalRequest_
> 
I'm still confused why this is optional in CGI.pm. 
Does it save some cycles by avoiding CGI.pm having to
sniff around for the Apache requestor?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message