in reply to Re: A "newbies" thoughts on cgi.pm...
in thread A "newbies" thoughts on cgi.pm...

I'm content that CGI.pm provides me with everything I need in an easy fashion (and the documentation for CGI.pm answers all questions I have about it

Well, with >3K lines of output from "perldoc CGI", yeah, I hope that would answer all possible questions, but it does present a daunting hurdle for anyone who hasn't used it yet. This is a problem inherent in any big module that does everything in a big domain. For a module like DBI, this is perhaps unavoidable; if it doesn't cover everything, it won't usable at all. But I wonder whether CGI.pm might be better if it could be broken into smaller modules that could be documented more clearly and learned more easily. (Can it be?)

I've only used CGI.pm once myself, and because I'm comfortable with Perl and big man pages, the module saved me a good bit of effort and grief. Still, my trial-and-error cycles tended to dominate over getting things right based on the documentation. Next time I need to do this sort of thing, I'll try CGI::Lite (or something of that nature) first, and hope that will meed the need.

If I end up having to use CGI.pm a lot, and easier versions don't work out, I'll probably write a wrapper module for myself -- something that will "use CGI;" and provide just the methods that I really need, in terms that are easy for me to use and remember. Then, hopefully, I'll never need to look at the CGI man page again. This is a good exercise for a newbie: write something that makes it easier for you to use a monster module.

  • Comment on Re: Re: A "newbies" thoughts on cgi.pm...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: A "newbies" thoughts on cgi.pm...
by tachyon (Chancellor) on Apr 07, 2002 at 10:03 UTC