I am in a Web Scripting class at school and am working on my first assignment. I tend to overdo things and delve deeper into my subject than what is required in my classes. Right now I am researching CGI.pm to do my HTTP requests and it says there are two programming styles for CGI.pm:
An object-oriented style
A function-oriented style
Unless I overlooked the clear answer or am not knowledgeable enough to discern the answer for myself from the documentation provided at: http://perldoc.perl.org/CGI.html I just don't know what the pros and cons are of using these two different styles.
With that being said what are the pros and cons of using the two different styles? Which one is more commonly used? As far as using object-oriented style it says I can only use one CGI object at the time. Why is that?
Thanks for all your help. You have all made studying Computer Science very enjoyable, satisfying, and rewarding for me. =D
Behind the scenes, CGI.pm is doing the same thing despite the styles. The functional interface actually uses a secret object that you don't see.
For many small-scale CGI projects, you're probably never going to need more than one CGI object at a time, so the functional interface is fine. This might be the more common style, but only because most people make small scripts for very specific tasks. If you have a lot of other stuff going on, you might not like CGI.pm importing a long list (and it is long) of function names into your script. Some of the function names might clash with those other modules want to import.
I, however, always use the object-oriented interface. I don't have to worry about name collisions, and it's apparent where any method came from since you see its object. It's also easy to pass the object as arguments to other parts of large applications, etc.
Some people might complain about the extra typing, but that's never been the slow part of programming for me. I've been doing Perl for a long time and I don't mind the syntax. However, I only use CGI to get the input and maybe send the output. I don't mess with any of the HTML stuff.
When it talks about one CGI.pm object at a time, it's referring to access to the input. Once you've read STDIN, for instance, another CGI.pm object won't be able to read that. You can have as many objects as you like though. They just won't share data and the first one gets all of POST data.
You can actually use a mixture though. You can import some things, like :html, but still use the OO interface to deal with the input.
I strongly recommend using the object interface.
Will it be absolutely required for your classwork? No, in fact it is arguably overkill for even small production projects.
However, if you are serious about learning to use CGI.pm for larger scale projects you will need to learn the object method. If you reach the point of needing two objects you will have to use the object interface. Programming, like most everything else, gets better with practice. Practicing now on relatively easier problems will help you be ready for more complex ones.
In fact I'd recommend it as a general rule in programming (although there are exceptions) that if faced with two methods of using a particular tool making a habit of using the one most likely to be used in production code and/or the one that is the correct answer for more of the problem space.
Related
Many standard modules are all using straight up perl -- problem is these guys arent using Moosey stuff, so I catch myself wrapping them with Moose or reinventing some simple functions in bigger libraries for convenience.
I wondered if there was any general approach to how developers using Moose incorporate other libraries that are non-Moose.
Being new to Perl and Moose I'd like to have a better understanding of how Moose is used in situations like this, or when it is generally preferred to use Moose vs Perl or even MooseX, or some other package, or whether its arbitrary.
Seems like there are different schools of thought, but Perl being as old as it is -- there are too many conflicting sources, so it's hard to navigate to a consistent truth. I'm not sure what to believe!
Anyone have a definitive source they turn to for "modern" usage of perl? Understand I've only been using perl for a month so I'm green to this community.
Updated
I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings by talking about libraries they love in a way they may not appreciate, so I've removed my side commentary about certain libraries Ive used to refocus on the question at hand.
Thanks for your guidance!
While I do not know what others do, I would be very reluctant to create myself extra work. I do not see any general need to Moosify a bunch of modules that already work.
If you want to inherit from non-Moose modules, take a look at MooseX::NonMoose.
If the HTML generation cruft in CGI.pm bothers you, you can use CGI::Simple.
About Reinventing CGI
CGI is a library which has been thoroughly tried and tested and if it needs improvement, you could build an extension, or contribute/contact the maintainers. You have to remember that modules are only as good as their track record (reliability) and their upkeep. Many people created decent modules, but didn't continue maintaining it, so they sort of fell to obscurity.
CGI is a boat all of its own, which if you think there's a lot of overhead, you could use CGI::Simple or CGI::Minimal. CGI.pm does more than parse querystrings, it also has cookie management (sessions), HTML generation, and other useful functions.
Others have had some criticisms of the overhead with CGI.pm, but that's why they developed FastCGI, which is modifying the server to use a persistent state of the script, thus loading the overhead once, rather than on every page load.
It is possible for you to create another (even better) version, but why bother? Many people may probably tell you, you shouldn't reinvent the wheel, with good reason. CGI has been around for almost 2 decades, with so many users testing it, finding holes, and having patched the holes; however, I'm never a big fan of saying "you shouldn't do something." If you think something could be better, make it better. There are many OSes that exist today just because of that reason, why settle for something that does 95% of what you need, if you need that other 5% too? But I also say, weigh your costs vs. benefits and determine if you want to devote your time to this, or if maybe there's another problem out there that has yet to be solved, that could use a little more manpower. To have something successful, you're going to need to test it thoroughly, and will most likely need to create something that other people would want and (at this point) there isn't much of a reason for CGI-users to be motivated to switch.
About Modern Perl
I think "modern Perl" is an oxymoron. I would jokingly call modern Perl; Ruby or Python.
That isn't to say that Perl isn't useful, because it is, but it's been around a long time. While it has had its significant share of changes from version to version, the most popular, Perl5, hasn't changed all that much; mind you, my definition of change is not adding to the language (new operators and functionality), but deprecating/replacing old features or changing the behavior of existing ones (like for/foreach loops).
Note: Perl6 could be considered modern perl (and does have many significant changes), but it's not widely adopted and was supposed to be released many many years ago (it's the Duke Nukem 4 Ever of programming languages).
About XS
I haven't done much module programming, but if memory serves correct, XS is the interface between Perl and C, which I think allows you to compile your perl modules for faster execution. Consider the PostgreSQL DBI module. There's a DBD::PgPP, which is a pure perl module to interface with Postgres, but there's also DBD::Pg, which I think compiles some of the code using C and takes advantage of some other OS utilities. Compiled modules have the benefit of faster load and execution (there may be some better resource management in there too).
I've seen it in the context of classes. I suspect it means that the class could use being broken down into logical subunits, but I can't find a good definition. Could you give some examples?
Thanks for the help.
Edit: I love the smart replies, but I'm obviously referring to "monolithic" within a software context. I know about monoliths, megaliths, dolmens, and all the stone-related contexts. Gee, I have enough of them in my country...
Interesting question. I don't think there are any formal definitions of what a monolithic class is, but you've got the idea. A class that contains multiple components that are logically unconnected, or pointlessly coupled, is a monolithic class.
If you've read The Pragmatic Programmer, which I strongly recommend, you can define a monolithic class as an anti-pattern that goes against almost everything from that book.
As for examples, you'll find more in the realm of chip and OS design, where there are formal definitions of monolithic chips/kernels, which are similar to a monolithic class. Here are some examples, although each of them can be argued against being on this list:
JOGL - Java bindings for OpenGL. This could be arguable, and with good reason.
Most academic projects - For obvious reasons.
If you started programming alone, rather than joining a team, then chances are you can open one of your first projects, and there will be a class that is monolithic.
If you look up the etymology of the word you'll see it comes from the Greek monos (single) and lithos (stone). In the context of software as you mention it, it describes a single-tiered application in which the code for the user interface and the data access are combined into a single program from a single platform.
"Monolithic" is a term that has been used to flame succesful software. This link exposes the assumptions inherent in the term, and their limited usefulness.
The basic assumption is that a system works better if it is built from software components that each have an individual, well-defined task. Intuitively, this seems right. If each component works, the entire system must work, right?
In reality, it's not that easy. A larger, compositional (non-monolithic) system can miss a critical function, even when there is no single component to blame. This happens when the architectural design fails to allocate a function to any specific component. This can happen especially if it's a function which doesn't map cleanly to a single component.
Now Linux (to continue with the linked example) in reality is not monolithic. It has a modular userspace on top of a monolithic kernel, a userspace that comes with many separate utilities. Except when it doesn't.
My definition of a Monolithic design in software development, is a design which requires additional functionality to be added to a single indivisible block of code.
PRO:
Everything is in one place, and therefore easy to find
Can be simpler, given there less relations to consider (can also be more complex see cons)
CONS:
Over time as functionality is added the complexity of the system may exponentially increase, to the point new features are extremely hard or impossible to implement
Can make it difficult for multiple developers to work with e.g Entity Framework EDMX files have the entire database in a single file which can be extremely difficult for multiple developers to work on.
Reduced re-usability, by definition it does not have smaller components which can be then reused and re-purposed to solve other problems, unless a complete copy of the code is made and then modified.
A monolithic architecture is a model of software structure which is created as one piece where all Rails tools (ActionMailer, ActiveJob, ActionCable, etc.) can be gathered together with the code that these tools applies. The tools are not connected with each other but they are also not autonomous.
If one feature needs changes, it will influence the work of the whole process and other features because they are parts of one process.
Let’s recall what Ruby on Rails is, what it can offer, its pros and cons. Its most important benefit is that it is easy to work with.
If you write rails new you immediately get a new application at once, then you can create any REST API you want and use Rails helpers and generators, which makes development even easier.
If you need to send emails in your Rails app, then use Rails ActionMailer. When you need to do some hard processing, ActiveJob will help you. With Rails 5 you will also be able to use websockets out of the box. Thus, it will be easy to create chats or make your application more interactive.
In case you use correct DSL syntax, you can use all that and even more immediately. Moreover, you don’t have to know everything about the internal implementation of these tools, consider it’s DSL, and receive the expected result.
It means something is the opposite of modular. A modular application can have parts, referred to as modules, replaced without requiring replacement of the entire application. Whereas a monolithic application, after having a part fixed or upgraded, must be replaced in it's entirety.
From Wikipedia: "Modularity is desirable, in general, as it supports reuse of parts of the application logic and also facilitates maintenance by allowing repair or replacement of parts of the application without requiring wholesale replacement."
So in the context of a monolithic class, all its features are self-contained and if you want to add or alter a feature to the class you would need to alter/add code in the class and recompile it. Conversely a modular class exposes access to functionality which is implemented externally. For example a "Calculator" class may use a separate "Add" class for actually adding numbers; call a "Multiply" function from a separate library; or even call an "Amortize" function from a web service. As long as the each of these functional parts can be altered externally from the class, it is modular.
I'm currently dealing with a code base which contains several dozens of classes generated with SOAP::WSDL. However, having worked with Moose I now think that generating those classes at runtime at meta level (i.e. not to files on disk but directly to objects) might be a better idea (completely excluding performance reasons at this point).
Is this approach sensible? The idea is to avoid changes to generated code and also to avoid re-generating it once in a while.
If so, are there any ready-to-use Perl modules that create classes from a WSDL?
To answer the second question first, there is nothing Moose based that will turn a WSDL into a set of classes. However you could possibly build something based on XML::Toolkit. For full disclosure XML::Toolkit is my module that has tools for converting SAX streams into Moose classes and vice versa. For non-Moose Perl classes, there is XML::Compile which I believe can compile SOAP wsdl -> Perl.
To answer the first question, my experience with XML::Toolkit says that keeping the classes in memory at run-time is tricky. Ignoring the performance overhead there is a lot of stuff you'll need to keep in your head that are inflated from the WSDL. It would be an interesting experiment, but I"m not sure how long-term maintainable it would be.
I've wanted for a long time to try something like this but I haven't had a project that paid me to really focus on it. Unfortunately I don't have the free time to tackle a project of this size either.
I have been using an Object-Oriented MVC architecture for a web project, and all the models are OO Perl. But I have noticed a couple on the team are reverting to procedural techniques and are essentially using "objects" as dumping grounds for related functions. Their functions basically read/write directly to/from the database.
What's the best way to convince them this is the wrong way? Are there some good tutorials I can get them to read?
I can think of three possible reasons why some team members may not produce nice OO code:
They don't care
They care, try to do it right but lack skills to do it right
They are doing it right, or at least right enough! Some matters of design are matters of opinion. Go back and look at some of your own old code, code that you thought was quite good, there's a good chance that you would revise some of it now.
My approach is to make the assumption that everybody wants to do the job right, so I assume (or pretend to assume) that folks care. One tries to build an ethos of wanting to do it right.
So that leaves building our skills, theirs and yours (and mine). Code reviews seem like one obvious way to do this. Talk about alternatives. Also maybe pair-programming?
OOP is just a tool to accomplish some great things like more reliable, usable and maintainable software. If you can not convince your team to write tests give up with strict OOP.
Are they all out of step with you? Perhaps it's just you who is out of step!
Lest I seem facetious, I mean what are the answers to the following questions:
What has the team agreed should be the approach?
Whose responsibility is it to enforce purity? If you don't go for enforced purity, whose responsibility is it to encourage purity? If it's not you, have a look in the mirror and make sure you are not the annoying noob on the team telling the old sweats how to do the jobs they've been doing since you were in Perl baby-clothes.
What mechanisms do you have in place for sorting out such team issues? Regular code reviews, pair programming, bare-knuckle fights ?
Asking them to read some tutorials is likely to be a waste of breath. What are your arguments for doing things the OO way? As Boris has observed, OO is not an end in itself, it is only a means to an end, and not the only means.
There are probably more things you want to consider in your situation, but these should get you started.
i have a big web application running in perl CGI. It's running ok, it's well written, but as it was done in the past, all the html are defined hardcoded in the CGI calls, so as you could imagine, it's hard to mantain, improve and etc. So now i would like to start to add some templating and integrate with a framework (catalyst or CGI::application). My question is: Somebody here has an experience like that? There is any things that i must pay attention for? I'm aware that with both frameworks i can run native CGI scripts, so it's good because i can run both (CGI native ad "frameworked" code) together without any trauma. Any tips?
Write tests first (for example with Test::WWW::Mechanize). Then when you change things you always know if something breaks, and what it is that breaks.
Then extract HTML into templates, and commonly used subs into modules. After that it's a piece of cake to switch to a framework.
In general, go step by step so that you always have a working application.
Extricate the HTML from the processing logic in the CGI script. Identify all code that affects the HTML output, as these are candidates for becoming template variables. Separate that into a HTML file, with the identified parts marked with template variables. Eventually you will be able to refactor the page such that all processing is done at the start of the code and the HTML template just called up at the end of all processing.
In this kind of situation, rewriting from scratch basically, the old code is useful for A) testing, and B) design details. Ideally you'd make a set of tests, for all the basic functionality that you want to replicate, or at least tests that parse the final result pages so you can see the new code is returning the same information for the same inputs.
Design details within the code might be useless, depending on how much the framework handles automatically. If you have a good set of tests, and a straightforward conversion works well, you're done. If the behavior of the new doesn't match the old, you probably need to dig deeper into the "why?" and that'll probably be something odd looking, that doesn't make sense at first glance.
One thing to remember to do first is, find out if anyone has made something similar in the framework you're using. You could save yourself a LOT of time and money.
Here is how I did it using Python instead of Perl, but that should not matter:
Separated out HTML and code into distinct files. I used a template engine for that.
Created functions from the code which rendered a template with a set of parameters.
Organized the functions (which I termed views, inspired by Django) in a sensible way. (Admin views, User views, etc.) The views all follow the same calling convention!
Refactored out the database and request stuff so that the views would only contain view specific code (read: Handling GET, POST requests, etc. but nothing low-level!). Relied heavily on existing libraries for that.
I am here at the moment. :-) The next obvious step is of course:
Write a dispatcher which maps URLs to your views. This will also lead to nicer URLs and nicer 404- and error handling of course.
One of the assumptions that frameworks make is that the urls map to the code. For example in a framework you'll often see the following:
http://app.com/docs/list
http://app.com/docs/view/123
Usually though the old CGI scripts don't work like that, you're more likely to have something like:
http://app.com/docs.cgi?action=view&id=123
To take advantage of the framework you may well need to change all the urls. Whether you can do this, and how you keep old links working, may well form a large part of your decision.
Also frameworks provide support for some sort of ORM (object relational mapper) which abstracts the database calls and lets you only deal with objects. For Catalyst this is usually DBIx::Class. You should evaluate what the cost of switching to this will be.
You'll probably find that you want to do a complete rewrite, with the old code as a reference platform. This may be much less work than you expect. However start with a few toy sites to get a feel for whichever framework/orm/template you decide to go with.