Simon -
I'm not seeing the behavior you document after running a few tests...
can you provide a specific RewriteRule and other relevant info?
while mod_rewrite kinda has it own rules of play, the documentation says
that the latest phase it touches is the Fixup phase, which, it explains, is
before content manipulation therefore, as I understand it, before a
PerlHandler has a chance to do anything...
so, in theory, your problems sounds kinda weird (yet interesting) to me...
hmmm....
--Geoff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stas Bekman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 1:25 PM
> To: mod_perl list
> Subject: Re: [Rare Modules] Apache::RegistryNG
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Simon Rosenthal wrote:
>
> > At 07:55 PM 2/4/00 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Yup, or I wasn't clear enough . The point was that we had a
> whole class of
> > URLS that would yield different package names for Registry,
> even though
> > they were all being processed by the same file.
> >
> > Add to my example above another rewrite: ABC999999.html =>
> > /perl/foo.pl?p1=ABC&p2=999999...
> > (and another, and another...)
> > They all yield different package names based on the
> original URL (at
> > least if you use mod_rewrite), so Registry has no way of
> knowing that they
> > are all processed by the same script. RegistryNG doesn't
> have this problem,
> > since the package name is based on $r->filename, which is
> the same for all
> > of them.
>
> Ok, just so I could show a complete example for the guide, the rule:
>
> XYZ123456.html => /perl/foo.pl?p1=XYZ&p2=123456
>
> generates the package Apache::root::...::XYZ123456_2ehtml ?
> This explains
> my confusion.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> 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
