RSS | Module Info | Add a review of CGI-Builder

CGI-Builder (1.36)

Please read through the reviews on this (CGI-Builder Ratings) page!! At the point of this review, 0 people found all posts (other than OVID's) useful.

Do look into the source before using.

I took a look at the links that OVID posted and at the code, ignoring style issues (which is pretty hard to do), it appeared that (according to the article) the install had some vulnerabilities. I browsed through the code and couldn't find the Makefile.PL with the vulnerability, and may be furthered by the "anonymous" posts in the perlmonks article mentioned by OVID; where the author? mentions that he has removed the LWP call to his own domain. He then posts the reasons he added the counter in the first place along with his opinions on privacy: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules/2004-05/msg00211.html

Clearly CPAN ratings is somewhat lacking in it's ability to provide appropriate "Ratings". At this point it does a simple tally without taking into account how *Useless* everybody has found the prior comments.

mshomsky - 2008-02-06 13:36:39
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.36)

Hmm, lots of five star reviews? Seems plenty of folks are quite happy with this module. But wait, what's that I see? Those folks are giving out glowing reviews to other modules, too. And as of this writing, those modules all belong to same author (http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/30399). Basically, various "people" are all showing up to say how wonderful Domizio Demichelis is. How curious.

You can also read a bit about the history of this module (http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/msg01291.html) and how he used to have this module "phone home" and then eval unknown code on your computer (http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=349737). Personally, I see no clear benefit and the somewhat questionable history of all of this compels me to leave this review as a counterpoint to the others.

Curtis "Ovid" Poe - 2006-08-16 01:48:32
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.26+)

Well designed interface to CGI that does all the heavy lifiting for you. Take the time to learn it.

Rob Arnold - 2005-03-07 04:35:43
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.26+)

Simple but powerful design, modularity (segregation) of web-application logic, brilliant ideas, integration of other toolkits, easy extensibility, good documentation - that's what makes CBF an excellent (best?) CGI framework. It can take a while to understand it - but when you do, you will never get back to PHP and similar stone-age programming. Promise.

-az

Alex Zhilyakov - 2005-03-02 20:14:55
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

Really a great module! I've tried CGI::Application, then CGI::Application::Plus, but only CGI::Builder allows you to do almost everything you want to. But it took me longer time to understand how to use it :)

Documentation is very clear and Domizio answers all the questions almost immediately on the mailing list.

Jury Gorky - 2004-11-22 08:45:07
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

Excellent stuff. Well thought out, coded, organized, documented, and supported. Remarkably stable and bug-free. Most utile when used with various extension modules by this same author.

Eugene Shekhtman - 2004-08-04 10:57:42
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

I recently started using CGI::Builder having previously used CGI::Application. CGI::Builder provides an excellent integration with session, template and user authentication modules. It has extremely thorough documentation and the examples are clear and understandable. The CGI::Builder CgiAppAPI Module has been extremely useful in my migration from CGI::Application and the mailing-list has been extremely helpful with all queries.

Jay Hargreaves - 2004-07-13 03:56:22
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

I think that CGI::Builder is an excellent module that provides a significant chunk of base cgi application functionality. On this platform an application that ccould have taken hours to build can take mere minutes.

Jacob Leaver - 2004-07-12 13:12:24
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

A very well featured framework for CGI applications with an extensive range of options providing great flexibility in the way that you can combine other CGI related modules with it. (Do a search on cpan for 'domizio' in Authors to see what I mean.) I prefer CGI::Builder because it is easy to understand, has copious documentation, good examples of its usage and good integration with templating, session and form-handling modules. The author has been very responsive to requests for help or enhancements.

Maurice Height - 2004-07-11 23:26:08
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

I think that is great.
I used CGI::Application for some time, but all my ne developments are focused with CGI::Builder and all of it's extensions (CGI::Builder::Magic, Auth, Session, etc)

Thanks Domizio for this great job.

Carlos Molina Garcia - 2004-07-09 11:45:49
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

CGI-Builder (1.25)

Very good framework: it's really easy building web applications with CGI::Builder.
More important, it favors complete separation between html and code using Template-Magic templates.
Good documentation.
Very good support in the mailing list.

Massimiliano Ciancio - 2004-07-09 08:44:03
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Perl.org sites : bugs | dev | history | jobs | learn | lists | use © Copyright 2002-2009 The Perl Foundation Site Information and Contacts