How can I get the workarea in cgi-callout?

I am using the File Upload
https://support.interwoven.com/kb/kb_show_article2.asp?ArticleID=52656

the problem is , it is hard code the Workarea in ipl
can I have anyway to retrive the workarea from the call out ipl ?

--------------------------------------------
TS 6.1 W2K3
OpenDeploy 6.0
CC Pro/Std

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

cliffhanger

I believe "area_path" parameter stores the value of workarea. I think this gives you the absolute path to the workarea, not just the workarea.

Nicholas

use CGI;
use TeamSite::Config;
my $cgi = new CGI;
my $area_path = $cgi->param("area_path");

Thanks Nicholas

cc96ai

Thanks

But does TeamSite::CGI_lite can get the workarea also ?

--------------------------------------------
TS 6.1 W2K3
OpenDeploy 6.0
CC Pro/Std

cliffhanger

Should be able to! The best way to find out, try it with CGI_Lite.

I don't think these parameters are library specific, are they, anyone?

Migrateduser

I don't see why not, but for some reason CGI.pm happens to play better with TeamSite and while it's a bit heavier than CGI_lite, it seems like the module of choice for many here, according to what I've seen.

Dave

Current Environment(s):
(1) TS 6.5 on W2K3
(2) TS 6.1 SP1 on W2K3
By the way, I miss Unix terribly.

cliffhanger

Dave,
is there any documentation/comparison on how these libraries plays with TeamSite, and what's the advantage of using one versus the other?
What are the best practices?

For FormAPI or Workflow we have documentation that one could use as the basis, is there any such documentation for cgi-callouts as well? Other than the lib perldocs??

Migrateduser

From what I can see with regard to the Tech Library and the KB articles on the support site, it doesn't appear that a comparison is made between these two libraries and how each plays with TeamSite. I can't say for certain that there *is* any real difference, but I know which I prefer and it's clear to me what certain others on DevNet prefer, as well.

It's quite possible that CGI_Lite may be a better fit for some instances -- it's better performance-wise and it carries nearly all of the relevant functionality that CGI does. It's also possible that what you have here is a bunch of old Perl fogeys who prefer what is already comfortable.

CGI.pm has also had significantly more resources in developing subsequent versions of the module where, I believe, CGI_Lite is still in version 1.8 which has been around since 1997.

Dave

Current Environment(s):
(1) TS 6.5 on W2K3
(2) TS 6.1 SP1 on W2K3
By the way, I miss Unix terribly.