> At 06:17 PM 2/4/00 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >The next module is Apache::RegistryNG.
> >
> >C<Apache::RegistryNG> is the same as C<Apache::Registry>, aside from
> >using filename instead of URI for the namespace. It also uses OO
> >interface.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> >There is no compelling reason to use C<Apache::RegistryNG> over
> >C<Apache::Registry>, unless you want to do add or change the
> >functionality of the existing I<Registry.pm>. For example,
> >C<Apache::RegistryBB> (Bare-Bones) is another subclass that skips the
> >stat() call performed by C<Apache::Registry> on each request.
>
>
> >One situation where Apache::RegistryNG may definitely be required is if
> >you are rewriting URLS (using either mod_rewrite or your own handler) in
> >certain ways.
>
> For instance if you have a rewrite rule of the form XYZ123456.html ==>
> /perl/foo.pl?p1=XYZ&p2=123456
> Apache::Registry loses big, as it recompiles foo.pl for each unique
> URL. We ran into this and were totally baffled as to why we had no
> mod_perl performance boost until Doug pointed us to RegistryNG, which is
> definitely your friend in these circumstances.
Huh? Why would Apache::Registry recompile /perl/foo.pl ?
p1=XYZ&p2=123456 is a query string and it doesn't affect the created
script's package name. Do I miss something?
_______________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stason.org/stas
Perl,CGI,Apache,Linux,Web,Java,PC http://www.stason.org/stas/TULARC
perl.apache.org modperl.sourcegarden.org perlmonth.com perl.org
single o-> + single o-+ = singlesheaven http://www.singlesheaven.com
