Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?

by tachyon (Chancellor)
on Feb 16, 2002 at 19:35 UTC ( #145890=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?
in thread CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?

unless your module is broken, of course

This is of course a grave concern. I am fairly confident that it is not too broken and somewhat reassured that it runs the CGI.pm test suite as well as a large number of unit tests. I wrote unit tests (well actually I wrote a perl script that wrote stubs for most of them) for every function in void, scalar and array context so the test suite is extensive.

I have checked the install under Win95, 98 and NT and Linux Redhat and Mandrake and FreeBSD and it installs fine.

Despite this any QA specialist will tell you there is always another bug, indeed Ovid has already found a blatant one (under mod_perl). I am hopeful that some of the monks who run development servers may consider the speed benefit worthwhile to experiment with it. It is only through widespread testing that you can truly start to feel confident that a piece of software is really stable.

cheers

tachyon

s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print


Comment on Re: Re: CGI::Simple vs CGI.pm - Is twice as fast good enough?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://145890]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-11-01 06:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (228 votes), past polls