Doug MacEachern wrote:
> haven't looked to much, but it seems ModPerl::Registry does not compile
> everything under the same root package as 1.x does with Apache::ROOT::
>
> but instead does something more obscure that also requires no strict
> 'refs' all over the place. 1.x was much cleaner the way it maintains the
> cache. 2.x seems to make it very difficult to have Apache::Status hook in
> to browse the cache.
>
> if ModPerl::Registry were similar to 1.x, the "Compiled Registry Scripts"
> item in 1.x Apache::Status can be made to work with 2.0 using something
> like:
>
> eval {
> Apache::Status->registry_cache(\%cache);
> };
The question is what are we trying to achieve:
1. making Apache::Status work as is
2. making the registry family more flexible
since we have different subclasses of ModPerl::RegistryCooker, to me it
makes sense to have each subclass have its own namespace for the cache.
So instead of hardcoding Apache::ROOT I use whatever the class's name is
+ Cache. Because of that 'no strict' is needed. I suppose this can be
rewritten to compile the method via eval() (which will also improve the
speed), but do we really want to have all variants of registry handlers
share the same cache namespace?
BTW, what's obscure about this?
${ $o->[CLASS] }->{ $o->[PACKAGE] }{mtime}
in 1.x it was:
Apache::ROOT-> $o->[PACKAGE] }{mtime}
or something like that.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
