On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 14:07, Garth Webb wrote: > So my question is, what do you think is the better alternative to > Apache::Registry?
There is nothing terribly wrong with Apache::Registry. The main issue is that it is emulating a CGI environment to provide backwards compatibility, and there's no reason to do that for new development unless you intend to support CGI. If you aren't using them, the extra moving parts for the emulation are just extra things that can go wrong or cause problems. There are certain specific drawbacks to the eval approach used by Registry, which we have discussed before on the list, but none of them are serious if you are following a good coding style. > Do people really have conf files > with 100's of <Location> directives? Frankly, if you have 100s of scripts, your application architecture needs reworking. I typically have less than 10 handlers for an entire, complex site, with each one representing a single application on the site. If I did have 100 handlers, I would use Apache::Dispatch, or generate my httpd.conf file from a template. - Perrin -- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
