good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Re: Re: Re: Why CGI::Application?by DrHyde (Prior)
|on Jan 14, 2004 at 10:55 UTC||Need Help??|
As another poster stated, it started me thinking about my webapps as state machines and that has been a good thing.
It most certainly is a good thing!
Maybe your apps don't need that, if you have a simple CGI that does one thing only - then probably not. But once you get into a multi-step, multi-form, webapp, CGI::Application is definetly a plus.
CGI::Application makes it no easier to write multi-form applications as far as I can tell. All my form submissions have an action=foo parameter. The various foos have sensible names and simply make the big if ... elsif ... else block call the appropriately named subroutine. This is exactly the same as CGI::Application's "run modes"
If you have the time or inclination, please write up what irritated you.
It irritates me because it provides nothing useful, while wrapping itself up in grandiose language about how it will make the web application world a better place.
Give us examples of how your approach is better ...
I can't give you the code, but I consider it to be better because it has fewer dependencies while requiring me to do just as much work, and because it's one less thing for someone else to have to learn before maintaining my code.
are you sure it wasn't the small learing curve for CGI::Application that just got in the way of you delivering the product.
What learning curve? CGI::Application is far simpler than some of the other modules I'm using.
I should write this up as a review for cpanratings.