Re: [cgiapp] CGI::Application::XML

[Jason Yates <suppressed>]

Jesse Erlbaum wrote:

> IMHO, the author of CGI::XMLApplication should have used
> CGI::Application in the first place.
>  
Those were my sentiments exactly.  CGI-App has a much cleaner interface
then CGI::XMLApplication.

> GI::XMLApplication is just CGI-App which outputs XML destined for XSLT.
> It implements a CGI-App style state machine.  (The fact that
> CGI::XMLApplication uses call-backs is not important.  CGI-App used to
> use call-backs, but we evolved to support references by name in addition
> to call-backs.)  As Jason has proven, slapping XML output on CGI-App is
> easy and clean.
> Jason:  If you haven't already, you should release your module to CPAN.
> I think it makes a lot more sense than CGI::XMLApplication.  I believe
> it will have a built-in user base of CGI-App users.  It will be far more
> appealing than CGI::XMLApplication, which is a bit of a one-trick pony
> and an unsupported dead-end, IMHO.
>  
Agreed.

> Before you release it, I would do a couple things:
> * Improve the interface to better integrate into CGI-App.  For example,
> use the cgiapp_postrun() hook to automatically create XML or HTML via
> XSLT.
> * Write POD!  Don't forget to include example cases.
> * Write tests, and set up a real MakeMaker-style CPAN package.
>
>  
Automatically serializing the XML data is something I want.  But, I see
no way of doing so without overriding the CGI-App run() function and
adding the serialize() function there.  Which isn't a very good option.

Of course, you could override the cgiapp_postrun(), in CGI-App-XML; and
then add the serialize() function.  But, then the user of the module
can't use the cgiapp_postrun() hook without destroying the XML
serialization.

> Not that you need it, but you have my blessings to use the
> CGI::Application::* namespace.
>  
Thanks.

> I think you could have a winner here.  When I read about
> CGI::XMLApplication a few months ago I nearly wrote the same thing.  The
> only reason I didn't is because I don't use XSLT.  ;-)  HTML::Template
> rocks.

HTML::Template is nice but XSLT is nicer :).  XSLT strength comes from
it's abliity to tranform structured XML data into another form of
structered XML data.  Not simply replacing text with text.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
             http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed