Re: [Pagekit-users] CGI::PageKit?

[Shimon R. <sh...@ru...>]

Whoops, forgot to send this to list.

----- Forwarded message from shimon -----

To: Boris Zentner <bz...@2b...>
Subject: Re: [Pagekit-users] CGI::PageKit?

Boris,

I like this idea.  One of the major weak points of PageKit is that it's
rather hard to install a new application; as a developer of a Free/open
source application, I really wish it were easier for users to try out my
software.  Ideally, I'd love to tell users to extract a tarball, put a
couple of lines in their web server config files, and try out the software.
This sort of thing would help.

One small point: in order to avoid having to test whether the apr method is
returning a CGI or Apache::Request object, could $model->apr perhaps return
(instead of CGI) a wrapper to CGI that preseves the important parts of apr?
Maybe the interfaces are already almost the same, I'm not sure.

I also recently heard about ApachePAR. This is a framework for packaging up
mod_perl web applications, like how WAR works for Java.  I haven't used it
myself, but has anyone on the list tried it?  Do you have an idea of how
well it might work with PageKit?

thanks,
shimon.


On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:10:52PM +0200, Boris Zentner wrote:
> Hi,
> from time to time I think on a version of PageKit that works with CGI 
> and LWP instead of mod_perl, has anybody a opinion on such a module? It 
> may work where mod_perl is not avail or when another persistent module 
> is used like mod_cgi or pperl or whatever. Also CGI::PageKit could 
> serve pages without Apache. I thought of it as a dropin replacement for 
> pagekit, just that you get a CGI object instead of apr. Currently this 
> is only a idea to waste some time. What do you think?
> 
> --
> Boris
> 

----- End forwarded message -----