P Kishor wrote:
On 11/19/08, Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you *do* get it working with mod_perl, I would be very interested to
hear about it. I can't. See also CAP::RunmodeDeclare as an alternative,
which *does* work with mod_perl, at least in my setup.
Ya, but... sadly, CAP::RunmodeDeclare "provides the same features as"
Method::Signatures::Simple which is derived from Method::Signatures
which claims to be "ALPHA SOFTWARE which relies on YET MORE ALPHA
SOFTWARE. Use at your own risk. Features may change."
"Derived from" in those sentences should be read as "takes inspiration from".
They do share a common dependency on Devel::Declare, which by now is basically
stable. I think mschwern should update his documentation there.
What I want to do is use only code that has been tested in production.
I am not sure what I mean by that, but definitely it wouldn't be code
that has in its pedigree somewhere warnings in CAPS that it is ALPHA
SOFTWARE.
I've been using CAP::RunmodeDeclare and Method::Signatures::Simple in
production for about a month now, in a large, high-traffic application (20
million hits per day on average). I haven't had a single problem with it.
That being said, we also have cgiapp modules in our application that use
CAP::AutoRunmode, and we don't have any issues with that either. And we do run
mod_perl2.
rhesa
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
