Four out of my five biggest customers *will* need to have both modperl1 and modperl2 in the same Perl installation tree on their
Bullcrap - I would say that sep perl installs is not enough!
Personally I would hate to work for anyone who does insists on dev/testing on live systems - they deserve what they get - outages *and* public ridicule.
And please don't give me that it's *sooo* hard to set up. One of our clients have connections to payment, billing and mobile networks that require major effort and cost for test config and even with this overhead they see the advantages of a distinct test system.
I would hope that your clients (as part of the disaster recovery plan)
would have a detailed list of software installed (including perl modules , configuration files etc) so that in the worst case scenario you can replicate the live systems without having to retest due to "possible" changes - frequent vaping and re-installing of the test system
is a good way to ensure the disaster recovery plan actually works...
Clients I know running Apache based systems have upgraded to AP2/MP2 and in the process, have planned upgrades of new hardware to allow // running as part of the migration process. Commonly hardware cost is often less or equal to the cost of executing a system test plan. Often they have been running MP1 for a number of years and the hardware has come to its "end of life".
If you are doing anything commercially sensitive I would expect due dilligence to require // running at a min.
Jacqui
p.s. Under windows (perl 5.6 for MP1 and 5.8.x for MP2) forcing distinct perl installs.
-- 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
