Re: slashdot php article
Perrin Harkins wrote: On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 07:56 +0100, allan juul wrote: it would be cool if it somehow somehwhere were more "visible" for everybody. for instance, if ASF on the menu on http://apache.org/ had a big fat checked mark and the words "Apache2 compatible" next to Perl, Jakarta or which ever was compatible with Apache2 (obviously many of these menuitems are not httpd- related) PHP is just as compatible with apache 2 as mod_perl 2 is. The threading problems are in the libraries, which is where Perl's threading problems are as well. aha - hmm, if that's the case why aren't *we* worried about people upgrading to Apache2 like the PHP folks apparently are, as seen in the slashdot article ? IOW, whats the big difference in the mod_perl community making an upgrade suggestion versus PHP making a non-upgrade suggestion if "PHP is just as compatible with apache 2 as mod_perl 2 is" ? [sorry for getting a bit off topic here, but i'm just getting a little bit worried that the PHP folks actually are right here] "Sister project" means "not an Apache project." mod_perl is an Apache project, which is why we get to send out an ASF press release, and PHP doesn't. ok - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slashdot php article
Quoting Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > also, i don't know if this true, but i like the idea of mod_perl being > > an Apache module more than a perl module. And i like the idea of > > mod_perl versions following Apache versions. So when Apache releases > > Apache 3.0 [which surely will be a major release], mod_perl3 will follow > > in the footsteps. it sort of gives the impression that mod_perl is a > > official professional partner > > I don't think we will have another choice. ;) it would be cool if it somehow somehwhere were more "visible" for everybody. for instance, if ASF on the menu on http://apache.org/ had a big fat checked mark and the words "Apache2 compatible" next to Perl, Jakarta or which ever was compatible with Apache2 (obviously many of these menuitems are not httpd- related) btw, what defines a "sister project" - why isn't mod_perl a sister and why is PHP? > > though if Apache 2.2 will be made possible to work with the current mp2, > there is no reason to release mp2.2, unless it'll require Apache 2.2 to > work. makes sense. i only brought up the version-numbering thing because i think it has an effect for many people. something like a Windows user who's using the Windows Server 2003 OS wouldn't want to use a SQL server 2000 if they could get a SQL server 2003 and the opposite is also often true - a Windows 2000 user wouldn't (nesecarily) feel a need to upgrade to a Windows 2003 SQL server. ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: slashdot php article
Jayce^ wrote: So, today's slashdot actually had a discussion on php problems with apache 2. Seems like something worth capitalizing on for mod_perl. Sure, a lot of the problems mentioned are the same one you guys have been fixing before calling mp2 stable (threading issues, etc), but might as well point out that they are being addressed with mod_perl, and not php :) ;) i think our PR(press release / public relation campaign) should emphasizing on "Please do upgrade to Apache2" also, i don't know if this true, but i like the idea of mod_perl being an Apache module more than a perl module. And i like the idea of mod_perl versions following Apache versions. So when Apache releases Apache 3.0 [which surely will be a major release], mod_perl3 will follow in the footsteps. it sort of gives the impression that mod_perl is a official professional partner ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FAQ (WAS: misc advocacy ideas)
Stas Bekman wrote: Perrin Harkins wrote: On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 14:38 -0500, Stas Bekman wrote: I think you are talking about something like that: http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/frequent.html That's a pretty short page. Maybe we could fill it out with some of the other FAQs that Allan listed and just re-title it as the FAQ. Yes, all I was trying to say that someone has suggested a similar idea before and that's how that page was started. As you can see it didn't quite get off the ground. But I think this is exactly what Allan has on his mind. Allan, if you want to take a shot at it, I'll edit it for you and put it up. We can put it up somewhere else for review first if that makes people more comfortable with it. Not really, just start adding those things, no need to slow the progress on that mini-project. And it shouldn't be too hard to give Allan commit access if there are many patches from Allan. i will take a shot at producing a FAQ list then as soon as i find the time in between deadline hell (; since i probably don't know some/many of the answers it's a good idea if Perrin could edit it (even if the FAQ answers are just excerpts of text from the real docs) ... ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: misc advocacy ideas
Quoting Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Most of the things in the docs, at least mod_perl 1.0 guide are FAQ. It > was originally written based on frequently asked questions on the list. yes, i understand that now. in a nutshell i see a FAQ as a short full stop page where one can quickly view commonly asked questions. let's take perl itself as an example. sometimes i forget how to do a directly search & replace in a file (in old perls you had to create tmp files and unlink them afterwards). this is not something i do very often so i tend to forget the syntax. but i also know that this would be a pretty common thing for people to do hence i look first in the perl FAQ. the infamous "Sometimes it Works, Sometimes it Doesn't" problem. i personally consider it a FAQ. if you were a mod_perl beginner but knew about this problem already (but couldn't remember how to solve it) how would you go about ? i see three approaches 1) look on perl.apache.org (how to find this answer is not that easy or is it ? what would you search for - how would you hyperlinnk-navigate ?) 2) ask the question on the mailing list 3) search elsewhere like google.com. horror! > Allan, may I suggest that may be you don't realize how much information > there is in our docs and how hard it's going to be to decide what should > be in the FAQ and what not? i certainly know there's a lot of information. i even think you know i know :) would you go along if i (if i can fine the time) took the task of simply compiling a small list a bit like the one i sent as an example in an earlier mail, the faq answers would then point to the real doc ? > If you really want to help with docs, the best thing you can do now is > start porting mod_perl 1 docs to mod_perl 2 docs, since that's the biggest > hole now. mod_perl 1 is going to phase out, and 99.9% of the questions in > the next year are going to be about mp2. We can't write a FAQ for that > since things are still not there. But filling the gaps in the normal docs > is what's the most important thing at the moment, if you ask me. i don't think a FAQ should be mod_perl2 og mod_perl1 specific. but i agree that getting the actual documentation right is much more important than a FAQ. but unfortuantely , im not in a position to help on that ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FAQ (WAS: misc advocacy ideas)
Quoting Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > While I agree with Stas that I've never felt the desire to point people > to a FAQ instead of to a specific place in the docs, I do like your > selection of questions. Maybe there could be a place for this, as a > sort of "first stop" for newbies. I still think it would mostly point > to things in the docs, rather than contain new information, but that's > okay. exactly! the FAQ answers could perhaps just be the first 100 words or so followed by a hyperlink to the docs answer "..." it doesn't have to be that extensive at all. like: FAQ --- .. .. 5) Sometimes My Script Works, Sometimes It Does Not - why is that ? When you start running your scripts under mod_perl, you might find yourself in a situation where a script seems to work, but sometimes it screws up ... http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/porting.html#Sometimes_it_Works__Som etimes_it_Doesn_t">Click here elaborate answer ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: misc advocacy ideas
Quoting Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > the FAQ should then reply in two sentences or less: "the reason for that > > behaviour is this blah blah ... click here to read more URL/TO/GUIDE" > > -1, it's already hard to maintain the vast amount of information. Trying > to keep in sync yet another layer of indirection is an overkill. Instead > an effort should be put at improving the existing information. And the > search engine should be useful at finding it. i can see it's another layer but it is perhaps also fewer mails in your inbox :) isn't it very normal for the people who ask questions to go to a FAQ just before they send their question ? about searching. i also like the FAQ to be in the downloadble pdf - there's no quality search engine in my pdf reader. im sitting in the train having printed the whole documentaion and ask myself "does apache require a restart if i'm doing a change in this bit of code". also the very fact that you bring up the "search" step, cries for FAQ. a user have to type a searchword, enter submit, and read through 70 Results for [cache] for example. ./a - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAQ (WAS: misc advocacy ideas)
Quoting Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > what i had in mind was a very very quick faq of perhaps 10 questions, > > perhaps only 5 or 2. the important thing is that it is concise and only > > updated when really needed (ie when people post the same question over > > and over again - which btw is also a sort of redundancy ;) ) > > so let us just start with questions that _really_ are mod_perl faq's. > > here's one that spring to mind > > But we have exactly that already: http://perl.apache.org/start/index.html hmm, i seems can't really explain what i would like this FAQ to acomplish. Probably because i don't have a clear idea myself :) i imagine a lot of diferent kind of people asking diffenrent kind of questions: from non-perl programmers thru expert mod_perl programmers to project managers. i see the current perl.apache.org as mostly a documentaion site for web developers who happens to like perl, but personally i would like it more to be for anyone who happened to come by. (so, when i think about it i don't see the FAQ as "best of" from the mailing list.) if there a 3-4 categories of people viewing the FAQ it could contain something like this : * do i need to learn perl ? * can i use mod_perl on Windows ? * can i access a MySql database via mod_perl * can i use mod_perl and PHP on the same time * does mod_perl run on MicroSoft IIS * is mod_perl faster than jsp-pages * we need a CMS - where can i download one and use * we need a search engine - where can i download one and use * we need a shoping cart - where can i download one and use * is mod_perl object orientated ? * how much converting of my cgi scripts do i need to do in order to shift to mod_perl ? * why doesn't my changes show up after i refresh my page ? * do i really have to restart apache for every single change i made ? * can i compile mod_perl with the apxs tool ? * how much does mod_perl cost ? * where can wwe get support ? * the software is broken and we can't sue anyone. what do we do ? * perl is dead, right - so why go with mod_perl ? * we heard apache is insecure - is this true ? * can we integrate mod_perl with our Economy systems etc. ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: misc advocacy ideas
Perrin Harkins wrote: On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 00:08 +0100, allan juul wrote: here's one that spring to mind 1) when i start my browser and go to [URL] the very first time i get one result but subsequent refreshes output different results. why is that ? http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/porting.html#Sometimes_it_Works__Sometimes_it_Doesn_t But maybe it is useful to have a brief collection of questions, even if the answers are just URLs like this. yes i think so. but i also know that i'm at a completly different mod_perl stage than yourself. but i think a FAQ wil help both a beginner and a list-replier and a even doc writer. i'm just guessing that people like yourself and stas who answers a lot of questions sometimes would like to make this reply instead of poing to an URL in the documentation: - have you read the FAQ? or - thats a FAQ :URL/TO/FAQ the FAQ should then reply in two sentences or less: "the reason for that behaviour is this blah blah ... click here to read more URL/TO/GUIDE" good night ;) ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: misc advocacy ideas
Stas Bekman wrote: > Jayce^ wrote: > >> On Monday 13 December 2004 03:59 pm, Stas Bekman wrote: >> >>> Jayce^++, should we better do it on the users list, so others can >>> benefit >>> from the discussion? so we kill two birds in one shot. of course it may >>> generate some extra noise. So it's up to you Jayce^ to decide whether >>> you >>> want to sum more or less :) >> >> >> >> I'm willing to do either, I just thought this channel might be better >> since it really is an advocacy issue. > > > But at the same time, many users on the modperl list wonder why should > they move to mp2. That's why I thought to run it there. It'll also give > you a chance to here why it's not a good idea to move to mp2, which is > just as important for PR. > > > hi again, i still think it's important that the why/why not "bullet list(s)" should be relatively short. there are probably more than 5 good reasons to choose either to upgrade or not, but if we need 15+ points/bullets to explain to a "non-converted" why he/she should upgrade i personally think the "non-converted" will loose interest. if we think this list as a list on perl.apache.org i imagine something in the vein of this would be cool [just a quick thought though]: HEADER: here are 5 major reasons why you should upgrade to mod_perl2 * reason1 * reason2 * reason3 * reason4 * reason5 TEXT: and click here to view 50 reasons more why you should upgrade TEXT: and click here to view 500 reasons more why you should be using mod_perl in the first place at all HEADER: Scared of upgrading ? TEXT: 5 major reasons why you shouldn't upgrade ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: misc advocacy ideas
Perrin Harkins wrote: On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 16:35 -0500, Stas Bekman wrote: > * faq > > this is such a web thing for both developers and project managers and > directors. couldn't we write a perl program that scans the total mail on > the mailing list extract the 50 most used words. seriously, it would be > great to have someone to write a faq - someone with the time to do it. The documentation that exists now mostly started as a FAQ that Stas kept adding to. I'm not sure it's possible to address all of mod_perl in a FAQ format. It would either be redundant, or just a set of links to the other docs. Maybe I'm just too close to the material though. If someone else has an idea for how to do a useful FAQ, show us. ok, i didn't know the mod_perl doc history. i guess a faq always is redundant (perhaps it even _should_ be). perl itself has one of course [1] oh, and apache too [2] what i had in mind was a very very quick faq of perhaps 10 questions, perhaps only 5 or 2. the important thing is that it is concise and only updated when really needed (ie when people post the same question over and over again - which btw is also a sort of redundancy ;) ) so let us just start with questions that _really_ are mod_perl faq's. here's one that spring to mind 1) when i start my browser and go to [URL] the very first time i get one result but subsequent refreshes output different results. why is that ? [1] http://perl.com/pub/q/FAQs [2] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PR release for mp2.0.0?
Stas Bekman wrote: For those who haven't noticed mp2-RC1 was released and we should get 2.0 really soon now (my guess another 3-4 weeks, but could happen earlier too). So it's time to start thinking about preparing a PR that was discussed here before. Any takers to lead this effort? hi not taking the lead, but here a few thoughts to what could help the PR: * news flash on frontpage on perl.apache.org one thing (and a thing which constantly annoys me from a PR point of view) is the fact that the mod_perl website's frontpage doesn't have a news section. it's no-one's fault but even that it's updated frequently, there aren't really any news on the frontpage. on that note i like the idea the way they do it on perl.org - probably some rss feeds (?) i think we should at least do a news flash somwhere on the slightly too informative (IMO) frontpage. * bullet list of perhaps 5 major reasons to upgrade can someone tell joe public in very few sentences what i gain by upgrading to mod_perl 2? * faq this is such a web thing for both developers and project managers and directors. couldn't we write a perl program that scans the total mail on the mailing list extract the 50 most used words. seriously, it would be great to have someone to write a faq - someone with the time to do it. * what does a banner ad cost on perl.com, could we get one cheapish ? a banner on perl.com should in theory really be free since they run mod_perl themselves and get articles i belive by the mod_perl community. banners elsewhere - dont we know people uses this great software who may want to support it back by other means that mouth to mouth ? * timing - is 3-4 weeks a good date or does the news drown in forgetfulness (xmas and new years hollidays). maybe it's even better to wait to january ? proper PR is probaly always well-planned. to me it looks like a very bad idea to release in the middle of xmas fever (altought it's a very nice christmas gift of course). it should also co-incide with the above suggest of a possible banner of course * merchandise - geek.com ? does mod_perl_1 merchandise even exists ? we might wanna ask people if they can help on the mod_perl list * how about a good slogan competition ? not kidding. the slogan should probably preferably reflect above wanted bullet list. * how about a possible list of comany users of mod_perl2 [if any notable] * lastly, don't know if this has been discused before, i really think that we should appoint 1-2 people responsible for the pr of this software. [people who can afford the time envolved] ./allan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
