[cgiapp] suitability of Autorunmode

[P Kishor]

On 11/19/08, Richard Jones <ra.jones at dpw.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I got the AutoRunmode plugin all set and running in my application
> > finally, and like it so far.
> >
> > However, I just read Mark Stosberg's review, albeit of an earlier
> > version where he found AutoRunmode to not be suitable for production.
> > Problems with modperl, and other unlisted problems.
> >
> > See
> <http://cpanratings.perl.org/dist/CGI-Application-Plugin-AutoRunmode>
> >
> > I am wondering if these problems have been addressed in the latest
> > version of the plugin? What is the "production ready" state of this
> > (and other) plugins? Is it drop-in-ready for use when migrating from
> > cgi to modperl?
> >
>
>  See my earlier posting - CAP::AutoRunmode not working with mod_perl again
> ??
>
>  It's viewable here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.openlib.org/msg07094.html
>
>  If you *do* get it working with mod_perl, I would be very interested to
> hear about it. I can't. See also CAP::RunmodeDeclare as an alternative,
> which *does* work with mod_perl, at least in my setup.

Ya, but... sadly, CAP::RunmodeDeclare "provides the same features as"
Method::Signatures::Simple which is derived from Method::Signatures
which claims to be "ALPHA SOFTWARE which relies on YET MORE ALPHA
SOFTWARE. Use at your own risk. Features may change."

What I want to do is use only code that has been tested in production.
I am not sure what I mean by that, but definitely it wouldn't be code
that has in its pedigree somewhere warnings in CAPS that it is ALPHA
SOFTWARE.

I guess I can go back to using sub setup {}... it is not that big a
deal. At some point I have to cut back on cutting back on corners...


>  --
>  Richard Jones
>