At 09:22 10.07.2001 -0600, Ken Scott wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Aaron Craig wrote:
>
> > At 12:21 09.07.2001 -0400, fliptop wrote:
> >
> > >why reinvent the wheel?
> >
> > I like my wheel better? :)
>
>But a wheel is just a wheel. Why not use the one that exists, and leave
>your mental energy an
On 10/07/2001 at 9:01 PM Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>For which you can still use CGI.pm, but use a templating technique for
>your display. I've written web apps where I use CGI.pm to only do form
...again, my point. You've just brought this back full circle to the beginning.
The path of this thre
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Jason Waugh wrote:
> >CGI.pm isn't the only solution to creating dynamic web pages with Perl.
> >Text::Template is another alternative, as are embedded Perl
> >implementations like Apache::ASP, Mason, or even PerlScript (for IIS).
>
> my point. I still need to be able t
>CGI.pm isn't the only solution to creating dynamic web pages with Perl.
>Text::Template is another alternative, as are embedded Perl
>implementations like Apache::ASP, Mason, or even PerlScript (for IIS).
my point. I still need to be able to access form data passed through and have an
ea
>CGI.pm isn't the only solution to creating dynamic web pages with Perl.
>Text::Template is another alternative, as are embedded Perl
>implementations like Apache::ASP, Mason, or even PerlScript (for IIS).
None of which is crossplatform (Windows / Mac / Linux)
or installable by a user with normal
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Jason Waugh wrote:
> I feel exactly as you do about separating design from code, however.
> I know a lot of fantastic HTML designers haven't even a clue what a
> print statement is, and can't expect them to spruce up a form or even
> overhaul the look of an entire application
>My problem with CGI.pm is that, get this, it's too complicated. I've tried
>to use it, but, quite simply, all I would ever want out of a CGI routine
>is
>to give me back the data in either a hash or object reference. The
...
>But hey, that's just me.
Not just you... I have no need of any other
> >Please note that CGI.pm is a special case.
My problem with CGI.pm is that, get this, it's too complicated. I've tried
to use it, but, quite simply, all I would ever want out of a CGI routine is
to give me back the data in either a hash or object reference. The
difference between:
$val
At 03:58 PM 07/10/2001 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>Please note that CGI.pm is a special case.
>
>Too many books show bad handrolled code.
>
>Too many downloads have bad handrolled code.
This I couldn't agree with more. It is definitely apropos (and an
obligation) to compel someone to use C
At 09:22 AM 07/10/2001 -0600, Ken Scott wrote:
>
>But a wheel is just a wheel. Why not use the one that exists, and leave
>your mental energy and talent available to solve your real problem at
>hand?
I often ponder this subject, especially after reading c.l.p.m.
Without question, perl (or genera
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Aaron Craig wrote:
> At 12:21 09.07.2001 -0400, fliptop wrote:
>
> >why reinvent the wheel?
>
> I like my wheel better? :)
But a wheel is just a wheel. Why not use the one that exists, and leave
your mental energy and talent available to solve your real problem at
hand?
J
> Can
> you do that for
> : the other functions as well?
>
> Yep, sure can.
now THATS information I can use!
Al Hospers
CamberSoft, Inc.
alcambersoftcom
http://www.cambersoft.com
A famous linguist once said:
"There is no language wherein a double
positive can form a negative."
YEAH, RIGHT
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 03:44:32PM +0200, Aaron Craig wrote:
: At 08:42 10.07.2001 -0400, Casey West wrote:
:
: >I would suggest that the most efficient approach might be to import
: >just one symbol from CGI.pm, explicitly. Now, Aaron, I'm not saying
: >you are wrong, however, I do suggest that
At 08:42 10.07.2001 -0400, Casey West wrote:
>I would suggest that the most efficient approach might be to import
>just one symbol from CGI.pm, explicitly. Now, Aaron, I'm not saying
>you are wrong, however, I do suggest that we encorage standards for
>beginners.
>
>In light of the above, ensuri
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Aaron Craig wrote:
: You are correct that loading CGI.pm is going to make very little difference
: in the overall time it takes to run your project. But, I find it good
: programming practice to be as efficient as possible -- even if the
: difference i
At 09:41 09.07.2001 -0700, Curtis Poe wrote:
>Gah!!! I wish I had seen this thread sooner (I've been out with the flu).
>
>Whoever wrote their own alternative to CGI.pm, post your code and I'll
>point out plenty of flaws
>in it. I'm sure I'll find at least 5 (one of these days I'll find fewer
At 12:21 09.07.2001 -0400, fliptop wrote:
>why reinvent the wheel?
I like my wheel better? :)
Aaron Craig
Programming
iSoftitler.com
Jason Purdy wrote:
>
> Found a link that described how to do this on the JavaScript side:
> http://www.webdeveloper.com/javascript/js_form_example.html
adequate, but useless if the user has javascript disabled in their
browser.
a good choice *only* if it's an internal application where you can
27;,
'doc_url||docfile' => 'Specify
either Document URL or Document File',
'capture_date' => 'Capture
Date',
'contributor_
--- fliptop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > since I don't use CGI.pm for basic web stuff, I have my own function
> > > > getting values out of the query string, and it was only giving me the last
> > > > value of MultipleSelectMenu -- bad :(
> > >
> > >that's why you'll be better off just alway
At 07:03 09.07.2001 -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>Aaron Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[...]
> > test.cgi?MultipleSelectMenu=1&MultipleSelectMenu=2
> >
> > since I don't use CGI.pm for basic web stuff, I have my own function
> > getting values out of the query string, and it was only givi
Aaron Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> test.cgi?MultipleSelectMenu=1&MultipleSelectMenu=2
>
> since I don't use CGI.pm for basic web stuff, I have my own function
> getting values out of the query string, and it was only giving me the last
> value of MultipleSelectMenu -- bad :(
that
At 23:14 08.07.2001 -0400, Jason Purdy wrote:
>I forgot the print $query->header part of the code. I also updated the code
>to accept '0' values by grepping within the keywords. I currently don't
>have to worry about multivalued parameters - I don't design my forms that
>way.
Ouch, I just got
>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Required Fields Module
> Excellent points - Thanks for pointing them out! I'll check out your
> tutorial soon (took a quick glance earlier this afternoon and it looks
very
> thorough, and a good read! Th
amp; try
again\n";
exit; # I couldn't just use the die, b/c it wouldn't format the
$msg like I wanted
}
}
- Original Message -
From: "fliptop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Purdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
S
Jason Purdy wrote:
>
>
> Example Hash:
> %requiredFields = (
> 'upload_file' => 'Document Source',
> 'doc_url||docfile'=> 'Specify either Document URL or Document File',
> 'capture_date' => 'Capture Date'
I wrote this simple lil' diddy as a reusable module to check required fields and
wanted to share it. You can put this in a central .pl file to be required by any CGI
script that needs to verify that certain fields have been filled out. Probably makes
more sense to do this type of verification
27 matches
Mail list logo
