[cgiapp] suitability of Autorunmode

[Rhesa Rozendaal]

P Kishor wrote:
> On 11/19/08, Richard Jones <ra.jones at dpw.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>  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."

"Derived from" in those sentences should be read as "takes inspiration from". 
They do share a common dependency on Devel::Declare, which by now is basically 
stable. I think mschwern should update his documentation there.

> 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've been using CAP::RunmodeDeclare and Method::Signatures::Simple in 
production for about a month now, in a large, high-traffic application (20 
million hits per day on average). I haven't had a single problem with it.

That being said, we also have cgiapp modules in our application that use 
CAP::AutoRunmode, and we don't have any issues with that either. And we do run 
  mod_perl2.

rhesa