Re: thoughts on cgi emulation layer

[Doug MacEachern <do...@pobox.com>]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, brian moseley wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> 
> > I'm not convinced NG is the final solution, but
> > something like it where the functionality is broken
> > apart and re-usable, unlike the existing Registry.pm
> > where everything is all lumped in together.
> 
> in order for this cgi emulation system to really make sense,
> we need to re-examine the responsibilities of the registry
> modules and perform a more explicit separation of behaviors
> into classes. this will make it much easier for everybody to
> understand their options: 1) use the strict cgi emulation
> layer; 2) use the 'bare bones' cgi emulation layer; 3) write
> your own cgi emulation layer.

I couldn't agree more!  I'd *really* like to see this done and done right
for mod_perl-2.0 (which isn't far away from being underway :)
if you're up for it, it would be great to have a design and/or prototype 
for others to comment on.

Re: thoughts on cgi emulation layer

[Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> for mod_perl-2.0 (which isn't far away from being underway :)

Hey - that sounds like most of my projects! :)

-- 
<Matt/>

Details: FastNet Software Ltd - XML, Perl, Databases.
Tagline: High Performance Web Solutions
Web Sites: http://come.to/fastnet http://sergeant.org
Available for Consultancy, Contracts and Training.