HTTP-Engine reviews

cpanratings
 

RSS | Module Info | Add a review of HTTP-Engine

HTTP-Engine (0.03004) ****

As written on peter.makholm.net/2009/09/10/httpengi...

For simple web-based services I usually just CGI.pm. After having read a bit about HTTP::Engine I tried it for a simple project yesterday. Beside my own logic it only took a few line of code to have a stand alone HTTP server for my service.

My colleague needed it to be served from the same Apache server as the rest of his webapplication. Some tiny changes and my stand alone server was transformed into a plain CGI script. When we going to deploy the script I’m guessing we make some tiny changes and have it running as a mod_perl module.

Try it for you next project! Even if you usually just use CGI.pm.

[EDIT 2010-07-21: These days I would probably use Plack for the same reasons]

Peter Makholm - 2009-09-09T23:12:52 (permalink)

2 out of 2 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

HTTP-Engine (0.0.17) ***

This is a potentially useful solution for abstracting details of various web servers. The overall quality of the code and tests look reasonable from what I've seen. However, when I tried to download this module along with its dependencies, the result was over 200 Perl modules. For me, this is too much resource penalty for the functionality it provides. By contrast, Mojo serves a similar function and no dependencies beyond core Perl modules.

Mark Stosberg - 2008-11-03T17:09:04 (permalink)

3 out of 5 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

HTTP-Engine (0.0.10) *****

Clean and simple HTTP server abstractions.

It's basically a web framework without the Kool Aid of frameworks - you do your own thing, but you can easily deploy FastCGI, mod_perl, POE standalone webserver with the same code.

יובל קוג'מן - 2008-06-06T18:38:50 (permalink)

4 out of 4 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No