W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 1999

Re: [PATCH] use CGI.pm;

From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:12:31 +0200
Message-Id: <199910051323.PAA07234@vals.intramed.rito.no>
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
On 04.10.99 at 14:03, Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org> wrote:

>On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:31:02PM +0200, Terje Bless wrote:
>>Found & Fixed, but...
>Thanks! I've applied your patch, and now the version running on
>the live site includes your earlier CGI.pm patch.

Hmm, it occurs to me that using CGI.pm may have an adverse impact on
performance unless run under mod_perl. Each time the validator is run, it
has to load the module and compile it. This should give a compile time hit,
but it may make up for it at run time.

This is another thing that I am (for reasons particular to my development
system setup) unlikely to catch in testing. OTOH, I expect any significant
performance hit will make everyone scream bloody murder. :-)

>> ...I'm not quite willing to accept this as a bug in /my/ code yet
>No, I'm sure it's not; I hope I didn't imply it was.

No, no. I make mistakes -- with alarming regularity -- and I'm not
particularly touchy about having them pointed out to me. In this case, it
is a matter of interpretation if the error lies with my code or elsewhere.
I wrote the above only to indicate that I was currently under the opinion
that the error was elsewhere.

>> (allthough I should of course have caught this in testing).
>I've realized that it's impossible to keep track of all the
>things I need to test when making updates to the service, so I
>put a bunch of test cases online:

Hmm, it might be an idea to create a test suite that will run regression on
the output for a set of documents. Not having done this kind of thing
before, I'm not sure I'm up to the task, but I'll have a go at it once I
get a few higher-priority stuff out the door.

Oh, BTW, speaking of priorities, I'm still open to suggestions as to what I
should prioritize. My TODO list is roughly equal to the official one for
the service, but if anything is particularly interesting to anyone I can
bump it further up on my list. Fell free to give me a holler.

>    http://validator.w3.org/dev/tests/
>and I test each of them whenever making non-trivial changes.

Yeah, I should probably avail myself of these.

>>existance of a pure boolean parameter type or that "p=" == "p".
>I just made that syntax up to make it look nicer to humans.
>Well, I had no reason to expect the syntax I made up would parse
>with someone else's CGI library.

But I'm still not exactly clear on what the intent is. The various relevant
W3C docs should be more specific on this issue IMO.

>Thanks again, and keep 'em coming!

My pleasure. I'll do some cleanup to shut the worst -w gunk up and then do
some work on file upload. .diff follows. :-)
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 09:23:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:25 UTC