> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stas Bekman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:27 AM
> To: modperl-2.0 dev-list
> Subject: Apache::Registry design
>
>
> I'm planning to work on Apache::Registry for 2.0 and want to
> hear how it
> should be different from what we have in 1.3. How all
> RegistryNG/BB/PerlRun are supposed to live together.
personally, I've done a bit of playing around with RegistryNG, subclassing
it, etc and the only gripe I have it that it still isn't modular enough -
PerlRun itself is chocked full of methods that handler() never uses (like
sub_wrap).
I think I'd rather see something like Apache::PerlRun::Base or whatever that
defines all the base methods cleanly and is then inherited by PerlRun.
PerlRun should then just be a handler much in the way that RegistryNG is
(but without overriding any methods, like namespace_from).
Apache::PerlRun::Base would not be a working handler.
just a thought...
>
> I think Doug has planned to have it as a standalone project,
> which is fine
> with me, but it's absolutely a must to have it in the core
> distribution,
> rather than in Bundle. Most of the people use mod_perl because
> Apache::Registry and PerlRun,
well, we could always advocate a change toward handlers exclusively ;)
> so having it in a bundle seems
> very wrong to
> me. So how do we host it?
>
> Please tell me your thoughts about things you wanted to get changed,
> things that should be added/removed, etc. Thanks!
I wonder how many people actually take advantage of NameWithVirtualHost=1.
seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames) is a much cleaner solution
that invites less problems/confusion.
--Geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
