| Thank you for trying to sort it out. > I assume you're looking at the non-dev PSGI specification yes. > PSGI specification on CPAN Not really sure it is a good idea to put a spec on CPAN(I know you can find books on CPAN but I really do not think this is the right place for such matters but especially when PSGI/Plack confusion certainly exists.well, that just my view of things)... Regarding your additions: >You can stop writing code to support many web server
environments. As your slide shows, CGI.pm handles quite well many of the environment you list. It has been in development for more than 10years, updated very regularly to fix bugs, even browser based one, the doc is easy to read.
The perl based server you list were built for PSGI in mind so you sell me some candies and the toothbrush that goes with it. > Your framework can now use all of Plack middleware components. session, caching,etc. All of these "middleware" already exists since a very long time. so it is just yet an other addition,an other way of doing it.
Some of these PSGI middleware were extracted from Catalyst. Catalyst authors decided to create their own set of engine instead of choosing to use CGI.pm (unlike CGI::Application/Jifty building upon it), linking to your "gross." conclusion- in your slide. > You can test the application using the consistent L<Plack::Test> interface. WWW::Mechanize works like a charm for such matters.
(perhaps your Plack::Test differs though, did not look into it so this might be a valid point) Regarding your slide: The diagram you show is at best simplistic, at worst wrong
(factcgi->lighttpd).
It deviates from reality to get to your point. I find the "CGI.pm? meh" slide very disrespectful
and all by itself shows the ambient snobbish attitude towards this very useful module(inherited from the Catalyst community mindset?) so all in all, I still don't get the problem it is trying
to solve(stealing from python you wrote. an other language, an other culture, an other context)
I still don't get the benefit out of it and why I should use it. I think I am a lost cause^^; I am sorry.
It's not that I am against new things but here,
I really don't get the advantage of this spec and everything
that goes around.
I have a bootstrap package that launches the FastCGI run loop
then delegates to modules that do there job and print the resulting body at the very end (it's a MVC like framework,nothing fancy) so I don't think it would hurt much to add support for this but I won't do so as long
as I don't get a real + in doing so. Using Nginx is not much of a matter.
(Nginx+FastCGI should be fine) |
They are also available on github with POD markup, with the full version controlled history: https://github.com/miyagawa/psgi-specs
> CGI.pm handles quite well many of the environment you list. It has been in development for more than 10years, updated very regularly to fix bugs, even browser based one, the doc is easy to read.
Yes, that's why I collaborated with CGI.pm authors and maintainers (Lincoln Stein and Mark Stosberg) from day 1 - like the possibility to include PSGI support directly into CGI.pm, which ended up in an extension module i co-authored with CGI.pm maintainers and put up on CPAN as CGI::PSGI, the CGI.pm compatible interface. T
There's also CGI::Emulate::PSGI which allows to write any CGI scripts unmodified under the PSGI environment.
> session, caching,etc. All of these "middleware" already exists since a very long time. so it is just yet an other addition,an other way of doing it.
It's not just an "addition" - if there are N frameworks, the caching modules need to be written and maintained for N frameworks - with PSGI unification, it should be written once and tested and maintained once - that way we can avoid duplicate efforts to fix bugs and make improvements, etc.
> Catalyst authors decided to create their own set of engine instead of choosing to use CGI.pm (unlike CGI::Application/Jifty building upon it)
and the upcoming Catalyst 5.9 removes all engines in favor of PSGI/Plack interface, like Jifty did a while ago.
> WWW::Mechanize works like a charm for such matters. (perhaps your Plack::Test differs though, did not look into it so this might be a valid point)
That's why there's Test::WWW::Mechanize::PSGI exists - you can run the exactly same test against a live server as well as in-process testing through the PSGI interface.