perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Johnson <p...@pjcj.net>
Subject Re: Alternatives to CGI perl module
Date Sat, 10 Sep 2016 14:41:16 GMT
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 08:18:53AM -0500, Igor Chudov wrote:
> Tom, thanks for your kind words.
> 
> I can, and will of course, install CGI myself as all my sites use it and I
> have 84,000 lines written using it.
> 
> My concern is that it will break at some point going forward if it is not
> maintained.
> 
> I try to use CGI.pm in ways that are not questionable, such as using it in
> object oriented manner without importing its functions into my main
> namespace.
> 
> Going forward, I think, I should get the message and switch to something
> new that will be maintained -- but to what?

CGI is being maintained, and very well, by Lee Johnson.  You write:

> > OK, so now, as of ubuntu 16.04, CGI is considered obsolete and is being
> > phased out.

Considered obsolete by whom?  By Ubuntu?  Why do you think that?  CGI.pm
is no longer in the perl core, but that makes it neither obsolete nor
unmaintained.

It is true that experienced Perl developers won't recommend CGI.pm for
new development work.  But that doesn't mean that you need to migrate
your work away from CGI.pm.  You might choose to do that anyway, to get
the benefits of more modern tools, but there are no plans to leave
CGI.pm unsupported.

> > Are these any realistically good modules made for people such as myself?

If you do choose to migrate away, I sympathise with your dilemma over
where to go.  I think CGI::Alternatives is a good document in that
respect.  See also http://shadow.cat/blog/matt-s-trout/mstpan-1/

I'd probably choose Dancer2 for new work now myself, but if you want 20
year support you might prefer looking towards Catalyst, or perhaps even
building something for yourself on top of Plack.

-- 
Paul Johnson - paul@pjcj.net
http://www.pjcj.net

Mime
View raw message