> I'm more of a perl end user and plead ignorance in actually understanding
> what goes on behind the scenes. In the process of considering upgrading to
> perl 5.6 and according to a recent message I see its going to be required
> for mod_perl 2.x anyways so I guess its a good time to start migrat
According to Eric Cholet:
>
> This is for using Apache 2.0's pthread MPM, of course you can build perl
> 5.6 non threaded and use apache 2.0's prefork model but then it's not
> as exciting :-)
Does apache 2.0 let you run a prefork model under NT?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > This is for using Apache 2.0's pthread MPM, of course you can build perl
> > 5.6 non threaded and use apache 2.0's prefork model but then it's not
> > as exciting :-)
>
> Does apache 2.0 let you run a prefork model under NT?
NT has it's own MPM which is threaded
prefork ... Multi Pr
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 11:59:58AM +0200, Eric Cholet wrote:
> > though. Can anybody in the know, shed some light on this, just trying to
> > save some work down the road as I'd like to upgrade to the perl 5.6 stuff
> > now and use it with my existing mod_perl (I already use the CVS version
> > a
According to Eric Cholet:
> >
> > Does apache 2.0 let you run a prefork model under NT?
>
>
> NT has it's own MPM which is threaded
>
> prefork ... Multi Process Model with Preforking (Apache 1.3)
> dexter Multi Process Model with Threading via Pthreads
> C
>
> So, does that still leave mod_perl serializing access until
> everything is rewritten to be thread-safe?
>
No, mod_perl 2.0 assign a "full" Perl interpreter to every Apache thread. So
the Perl modules itself need not to be thread safe. Perl 5.6 has some nice
features to clone a Perl interpret
At 02:51 PM 4/23/00 +0200, Gerald Richter wrote:
> >
> > So, does that still leave mod_perl serializing access until
> > everything is rewritten to be thread-safe?
> >
>
>No, mod_perl 2.0 assign a "full" Perl interpreter to every Apache thread. So
>the Perl modules itself need not to be thread saf
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Gerald Richter wrote:
> >
> > So, does that still leave mod_perl serializing access until
> > everything is rewritten to be thread-safe?
> >
>
> No, mod_perl 2.0 assign a "full" Perl interpreter to every Apache thread. So
> the Perl modules itself need not to be thread safe.
At 09:59 AM 4/23/00 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Gerald Richter wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So, does that still leave mod_perl serializing access until
> > > everything is rewritten to be thread-safe?
> > >
> >
> > No, mod_perl 2.0 assign a "full" Perl interpreter to every Apache
>
> In the end, there may still be some threading issues that should
> be watched
> out for I suspect. If mod_perl 2.0 follows a similar design to
> ActiveState's PerlEx, PerlEx also has some problems when the Perl modules
> themselves link to stuff that is not threadsafe as a shared library.
>
Y
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> So, does that still leave mod_perl serializing access until
> everything is rewritten to be thread-safe?
no, -Dusethreads with 5.6.0 makes the Perl runtime (aka PerlInterpreter),
re-entrant. all of Perl's internal globals (symbol table, stacks,
etc.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> I agree... but to some degree I hope this has been done for many of the
> major modules and the major DBI modules (eg DBD sybase)... as they ended up
> having to work on ActiveState's PerlEx which uses a similar model. In a
> way, PerlEx's model
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Eric Cholet wrote:
> mod_perl-2.0 requires perl 5.6 to be build with -Dusethreads, which turns
> on threading and multiplicity.
just to be clear, as you mention below, -Dusetheads isn't required for
mod_perl-2.0, but strongly suggested if you use an mpm other than prefork :
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 07:08:00PM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > The biggest hurdle I've faced until now is
> > that DBI won't build with this threaded perl. Hopefully DBI will be updated
> > since the latest version is from july 99.
>
> it compiles with the patch below, not sure if it actua
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Michael hall wrote:
> Just tried it here and aside from some warnings it compiled and passed all
> its tests. Can't say whether it works or not though as Msql-Mysql doesn't
> compile, you got a patch hiding for that somewhere too :-)
sure :) again, just compiles, not sure
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 01:32:29AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > Just tried it here and aside from some warnings it compiled and passed all
> > its tests. Can't say whether it works or not though as Msql-Mysql doesn't
> > compile, you got a patch hiding for that somewhere too :-)
>
> sure :)
16 matches
Mail list logo
