Re: Problems with proxying POST?
Chris Lewis wrote: [Given that Stronghold is a bit old, I'm endeavering to build Apache/mod_ssl/mod_perl from scratch, but it complains about not being able to load Apache.pm... Is there a step-by-step set of Solaris instructions somewhere?] Maybe following helps: 03ae01c0229b$a33af840$0e4077cc@tabula">http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/gendkilblul/03ae01c0229b$a33af840$0e4077cc@tabula
Re: Help...
Christophe wrote:
I am pretty new with mod_perl and I have the following runtime error :
Database handle destroyed without explicit disconnect at
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005/i386-linux/Apache/Registry.pm line 144.
[Tue Oct 3 22:33:58 2000] [error] Can't call method "errstr" on
unblessed reference at ./libdb.pl line 35.
What is "unblessed reference" ???
Before it was working. I do not know why it is not working anymore...
Here is the code around my line 35...
ConnexionDB("db_test", "localhost", "user", "password", \$dbh, 1);
if ($action eq "question"){
enregistre(\$dbh, $question, $nomdemandeur, $courriel, $location,
$langue);
}
thanks for any help...
hi chistophe
About DBI:
1:When you use DBI, you have to call $dbh-disconnect before the $dbh
goes out of scope to avoid this warning.
2:If you have a running statement ( eg: you've made a "select * from
youtTable" and you've not fetch all rows ) you'll also have to call
$sth-finish before calling $dbh-disconnect() ) to avoid another
warning
Re: [DIGEST] mod_perl digest 9/24/2000
-- mod_perl digest September 24, 2000 - September 30, 2000 -- Welcome to the first digest of the happenings in the mod_perl world. A work in progress, the mod_perl digest hopes to cover important issues to people using mod_perl on a weekly basis. It may, however, evolve into something greater (or lesser) - constructive criticism welcome... Great! I think this is the best thing that could be done at this point to increase mod_perl's visibility. Have you contacted the people at e.g LWN.net, so they can link to the digest in their "linux ( free software) weekly news"? -- Roger Espel Llima, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iagora.com/~espel/index.html
Re: Way it is so copmplicated
I think someone should tell Mr. "-" (aka 051581324) not to go offtopic. Or at least say something intelligent, if you must go offtopic. --Original Message-- From: Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 2, 2000 7:43:23 AM GMT Subject: Re: Way it is so copmplicated On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, - wrote: I am developing computer software for more than 30 years. Yet not able to install even the minimal support for ASP using APACHE on WIN95 platform (which is no doubt, the most popular in the world). Not for web serving. Please read the note about Windows on the Apache web site. Win95 is fundamentally broken for anything more than simple web serving. Even Microsoft's PWS for Win95 is extremely limited. (I really had better not be feeding a troll here, I haven't had much coffee yet...) I do believe that there are a lot of persons getting salaries from "APACHE ORG". I'm sure they wish that were the case. Most of the ASF members have day jobs. Is it not reasonable that some of them are paid by Microsoft to make thinks complicated, to slow Linux penetrating ? No. Thats a truly unfair and unjust label to pin on these people who have done incredible work for free. Remember that MS pump millions of dollars into developing IIS, ASP and VBScript. We don't have $$$, we just use our desire to "give something back". It is the fight for freedom !!! I'm not sure whether to consider your post a troll or not. It certainly smells of one. If you have a specific problem with installing Apache::ASP then why don't you tell us what those problems are, instead of just saying "Its too hard". Maybe, just maybe, we can help you. -- Matt/ Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org | AxKit: http://axkit.org -- ./ricarDo oliveiRa __ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Re: Way it is so copmplicated
The difficulties in using mod_perl are not an offtopic though. But I agree about the intelligent part. There are certainly clearer ways of wording ones frustrations. At 05:24 AM 10/4/00 -0400, ricarDo oliveiRa wrote: I think someone should tell Mr. "-" (aka 051581324) not to go offtopic. Or at least say something intelligent, if you must go offtopic. --Original Message-- From: Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 2, 2000 7:43:23 AM GMT Subject: Re: Way it is so copmplicated On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, - wrote: I am developing computer software for more than 30 years. Yet not able to install even the minimal support for ASP using APACHE on WIN95 platform (which is no doubt, the most popular in the world). Not for web serving. Please read the note about Windows on the Apache web site. Win95 is fundamentally broken for anything more than simple web serving. Even Microsoft's PWS for Win95 is extremely limited. (I really had better not be feeding a troll here, I haven't had much coffee yet...) I do believe that there are a lot of persons getting salaries from "APACHE ORG". I'm sure they wish that were the case. Most of the ASF members have day jobs. Is it not reasonable that some of them are paid by Microsoft to make thinks complicated, to slow Linux penetrating ? No. Thats a truly unfair and unjust label to pin on these people who have done incredible work for free. Remember that MS pump millions of dollars into developing IIS, ASP and VBScript. We don't have $$$, we just use our desire to "give something back". It is the fight for freedom !!! I'm not sure whether to consider your post a troll or not. It certainly smells of one. If you have a specific problem with installing Apache::ASP then why don't you tell us what those problems are, instead of just saying "Its too hard". Maybe, just maybe, we can help you. -- Matt/ Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org | AxKit: http://axkit.org -- ./ricarDo oliveiRa __ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
[JOB] Short-term/repeat development opportunities
I'm looking for individuals/companies to undertake short duration tightly scoped development projects in mod_perl, apache, MySQL LDAP. Williams Lea Group is building it's intranet using these technologies and we need a variety of small applications to support various business units. I am looking for suppliers who would be interested in working on projects such as: * Integration proxies to provide single sign-on capabilities to other web based applications * Survey feedback systems * User directory (extending existing functionality to support self-service update of LDAP information) * Migration of MS Access databases to MySQL and web-enablement Individual projects will range from a few days of Apache configuration to a few weeks of bespoke coding. Williams Lea is based in London but remote development is a possibility. Please contact me directly if you are interested. Simon Wilcox Intranet Development Manager 020 7772 4493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Williams Lea Group www.williamslea.com __ This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or reply on this email.
Re: Help with Apache::Status
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, James Xie wrote: I try to use Apache::Status to find out memory usage of my perl scripts, I configured the system according to the mod_perl guide: Add the following lines to httpd.conf Location /perl-status SetHandler perl-script PerlHandler Apache::Status order deny,allow /Location PerlSetVar StatusOptionsAll On PerlSetVar StatusTerse On PerlSetVar StatusTerseSize On PerlSetVar StatusTerseSizeMainSummary On PerlModule B::TerseSize I also installed B-Size-0.04 and Devel-Symdump on the system. I got internal server log every time I try to access /perl-status. This is what in the log file: [Tue Oct 3 15:49:15 2000] [error] [Tue Oct 3 15:49:15 2000] null: Undefined su broutine Apache::Status::handler called. If I remove PerlModule B::TerseSize from httpd.conf, I can get to the /perl-status page but I got error again when I click on the memory usage button. What did I miss? I think I've seen it before, but probably forgot to document it. If I remember correctly you have to preload one of the modules it uses. May be B::Terse? As for PerlSetVar StatusOptionsAll On turns all the options On, my bad, should fix that. You shouldn't set it unless you want all the options to be On. Tell me whether it worked for you and I'll fix the guide accordingly. Thanks. Thanks James _ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://jazzvalley.com http://singlesheaven.com http://perlmonth.com perl.org apache.org
RE: [DIGEST] mod_perl digest 9/24/2000
-Original Message- From: Roger Espel Llima [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Geoffrey Young Subject: Re: [DIGEST] mod_perl digest 9/24/2000 [snip] Great! I think this is the best thing that could be done at this point to increase mod_perl's visibility. Have you contacted the people at e.g LWN.net, so they can link to the digest in their "linux ( free software) weekly news"? well, there's nothing to link to for the moment :) that is, there is no official home for the html version yet. I have a tester on my corporate homepage, but am reluctant to publish a link to it in the digest (or crawlers or whatever) because of issues that may arise with my employer... I would like to get space on perl.apache.org, but that depends on someone with the appropriate level of permissions finding the time to make space, give me access or post it to the site themselves, make a link, etc... all good things in time --Geoff -- Roger Espel Llima, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iagora.com/~espel/index.html
Re: Pointer to a CGI.pm list
"Roderick A. Anderson" wrote: Sorry but I've run out of sources. (Don't have netnews.) Is there a mailing list for CGI.pm? I've done all I can by reading the 'the book' and searching the net. Can't find anything like the symtoms I'm seeing. Actually the problem may be a lack of perl knowledge on my part but it manifests itself when using CGI.pm so I have to start there. I take the above to mean that you don't have Usenet access? Maybe you could use DejaNews (www.deja.com) to access comp.lang.perl.modules.
Solved, partially - Pointer to a CGI.pm list
I found _my_ error that caused me to send the original message. It was a perl thingy. Now I've got to get with the Camel book to find out if I can and how to do what I really wanted to do. Fyi, I was trying to pass the keys of a hash to the -values in a popup_menu (CGI.pm). Followed by the hash to the -labels. And I just now re-read (for the 10th plus time ) the reference section on 'popup_menu' in the CGI.pm book and see I could have done it without all the mucking about I was doing. RTFM, Then re-read it! Thanks to all that offered suggestions and pointers. Rod -- Roderick A. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Altoplanos Information Systems, Inc. Voice: 208.765.6149212 S. 11th Street, Suite 5 FAX: 208.664.5299 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Apache::Session - kludgy workaround?
If I repeatedly write to:
$session{foo}{bar}
I find that I have to do something like:
$session{smack}++;
to get it to write when the hash is untied. Is there a better way to do this?
TIA
ian
RE: Apache::Session - kludgy workaround?
Reading the directions ;-)
Apache::Session doesn't do any deep checking, if a top level doesn't value
doesn't change
it may not detect the change.
This is why your workaround works...
The offically recommend workaround (I believe) is to keep a timestamp as a
top level value in the hash...
-Original Message-
From: Ian Mahuron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 2:48 PM
To: ml: mod_perl
Subject: Apache::Session - kludgy workaround?
If I repeatedly write to:
$session{foo}{bar}
I find that I have to do something like:
$session{smack}++;
to get it to write when the hash is untied. Is there a better
way to do this?
TIA
ian
Re: Pointer to a CGI.pm list
On 3 Oct 2000, at 14:17, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: Sorry but I've run out of sources. (Don't have netnews.) Is there a mailing list for CGI.pm? I've done all I can by reading the 'the book' and searching the net. Can't find anything like the symtoms I'm seeing. Actually the problem may be a lack of perl knowledge on my part but it manifests itself when using CGI.pm so I have to start there. Hi, this is just the mention of another list where Perl and cgi is the primary topic. There is a list which is quite a few degrees less ... umm ... I think you get the drift, but the list has some real good people on it in addition to total newbies and is actually quite friendly to newbies (once TC left :):) ... there was a great thread for awhile where TC tried to explain why such and such was necessary ... most of the list would not listen). Granted, if you are posting to this list you are not a newbie (and in fact we try to get people on the cgi-list to just use CGI.pm ... although for mod_perl I use other modules) but as I said there are some very knowledgeable, helpful members on that list and more talk of mod_perl would not hurt. It is the cgi-list. Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe cgi-list Peter __ Exercise Your Brain, Read a Book -- O Crazy Gringo, Ipanema, Brazil
RE: Help with Apache::Status
It seems I forgot to pre-load the Apache::Status module, it works now once I add the following line in configuration file: PerlModule Apache::Status; I also pre-loaded B::Terse in the startup.pl. Thanks James -Original Message- From: Stas Bekman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:36 AM To: James Xie Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Help with Apache::Status On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, James Xie wrote: I try to use Apache::Status to find out memory usage of my perl scripts, I configured the system according to the mod_perl guide: Add the following lines to httpd.conf Location /perl-status SetHandler perl-script PerlHandler Apache::Status order deny,allow /Location PerlSetVar StatusOptionsAll On PerlSetVar StatusTerse On PerlSetVar StatusTerseSize On PerlSetVar StatusTerseSizeMainSummary On PerlModule B::TerseSize I also installed B-Size-0.04 and Devel-Symdump on the system. I got internal server log every time I try to access /perl-status. This is what in the log file: [Tue Oct 3 15:49:15 2000] [error] [Tue Oct 3 15:49:15 2000] null: Undefined su broutine Apache::Status::handler called. If I remove PerlModule B::TerseSize from httpd.conf, I can get to the /perl-status page but I got error again when I click on the memory usage button. What did I miss? I think I've seen it before, but probably forgot to document it. If I remember correctly you have to preload one of the modules it uses. May be B::Terse? As for PerlSetVar StatusOptionsAll On turns all the options On, my bad, should fix that. You shouldn't set it unless you want all the options to be On. Tell me whether it worked for you and I'll fix the guide accordingly. Thanks. Thanks James _ Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://jazzvalley.com http://singlesheaven.com http://perlmonth.com perl.org apache.org
Re: Loading modules in Parent??
At 12:04 AM 10/02/00 -0600, Scott Wilson wrote: I've seen a similar result on an IRIX installation I'm working on. Anyone have any ideas? So did you decide NOT to pre-load modules? Scott Bill Moseley wrote: Won't someone comment on this post? That's a chunk of memory! At 11:46 AM 09/28/00 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote: snip This is what pmap -x is showing: Address Kbytes Resident Shared Private Permissions Mapped File -- -- -- -- total Kb 19968 185282816 15712 -- preloaded modules total Kb 11528 1015226567496 -- not preloaded It's almost all heap: 00164000 16376 15256 312 14944 read/write/exec[ heap ] 0016400075926608 1046504 read/write/exec[ heap ] Is this an issue just with Solaris or is this expected (and seen) on other platforms? Bill Moseley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Moseley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Forking in mod_perl?
Hi All, Quick question - can I fork off a process in mod_perl? I've got a piece of code that needs to do a lot of processing that's unrelated to what shows up in the browser. So I'd like to be able to fork the processing off and return data to the browser, letting the forked process handle the extra processing at its leisure. Is this doable? Is forking a good idea in a mod_perl environment? Might there be another way to do it? TIA for the help! David -- David E. Wheeler Software Engineer Salon Internet ICQ: 15726394 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dwTheory
RE: Forking in mod_perl?
-Original Message- From: David E. Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Forking in mod_perl? Hi All, Quick question - can I fork off a process in mod_perl? I've got a piece of code that needs to do a lot of processing that's unrelated to what shows up in the browser. So I'd like to be able to fork the processing off and return data to the browser, letting the forked process handle the extra processing at its leisure. Is this doable? Is forking a good idea in a mod_perl environment? Might there be another way to do it? http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Forking_and_Executing_Subproce ss the cleanup phase is also a good place to do extended processing. It does tie up the child until the processing finishes, but it at least make the client think that the response is finished (so that little moving thingy in netscape stops moving around) HTH --Geoff TIA for the help! David -- David E. Wheeler Software Engineer Salon Internet ICQ: 15726394 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dwTheory
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
Hi David, Check out the guide at http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Forking_and_Executing_Subprocess The Eagle book also covers the C API subprocess details on page 622-631. Let us know if the guide is unclear to you, so we can improve it. Ed "David E. Wheeler" wrote: Hi All, Quick question - can I fork off a process in mod_perl? I've got a piece of code that needs to do a lot of processing that's unrelated to what shows up in the browser. So I'd like to be able to fork the processing off and return data to the browser, letting the forked process handle the extra processing at its leisure. Is this doable? Is forking a good idea in a mod_perl environment? Might there be another way to do it? TIA for the help! David -- David E. Wheeler Software Engineer Salon Internet ICQ: 15726394 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dwTheory
More mod-perl as DSO on Solaris (Please help)
Hello, I am trying to install Apache 1.3.12 with mod_perl 1.24 on Solaris 2.8. In my most recent attempt, relying on several suggestions from the archive I have: (Using gcc 2.92.2 for all compiling.) Recompiled Perl 5.6.0 sh Configure -Dcc=gcc -Uuselargefiles Recompiled Apache 1.3.12 ./configure \ --prefix=/usr/local/apache \ --enable-module=most \ --enable-shared=max Attempted to recompile mod_perl: perl Makefile.PL \ USE_APXS=1 \ WITH_APXS=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs \ EVERYTHING=1 Will configure via APXS (apxs=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs) * ERROR * Your current configuration will most likely trigger core dumps, suggestions: *) Do not configure mod_perl as a DSO *) Rebuild Perl without malloc pollution (Configure -Ubincompat5005) * ERROR * Do I really need to recompile Perl yet again? Or can I have mod_perl build the httpd (assuming someone can point out how to make it configure Apache for DSO support for other modules)? I may be impressed once I get mod_perl working but so far it is a long way from the ease of installing the Apache webserver. Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A really really weird use for subrequests...
Hy, list people. I'm need build a rewriting proxy module for my apache. The basic idea is get a request, turn it on a proxy request as described in the eagle book @ page 371, rewrite the $request-contents so the client will come back to me when processing the next request and let apache follow the content generation process and response phase as it allways do. I know how to make the transformation to a mod_proxy request. I also know that the mod_proxy will bring me the right page, so i simply don't care about this stage. But i *really* *don't* *know* how to rewrite the response *before* the mod_proxy sends it back to the client. Can i make the mod_proxy redirect using a sub-request, and still have the contents (and headers, and everything else) to let apache handle the response phase ? If not, how can i do this weird thing? thank you all in advance for any ideas! []'z! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Luis 'Champs' de Carvalho @@ @@ @@ SysAdmin at TBN @@ @@ @@ mail to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] @@ @@ http://www.tbn.com.br/@@ @@ Phone: +55(011)3842.9967@@ @@ "There's no spoon." @@ @@ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RE: Forking in mod_perl?
I was just going to post that url to the guide also... But another option I've come up with not listed in the guide is to use the *nix "at" command. If I need to run some processor intensive application that doesn't need apache_anything, I'll do a system call to "at" to schedule it to run (usually I pass in "now"). However, the drawbacks are that it's a complete seperate process and passing complicated structures isn't worth the time to think about using at. Jay On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Geoffrey Young wrote: -Original Message- From: David E. Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Forking in mod_perl? Hi All, Quick question - can I fork off a process in mod_perl? I've got a piece of code that needs to do a lot of processing that's unrelated to what shows up in the browser. So I'd like to be able to fork the processing off and return data to the browser, letting the forked process handle the extra processing at its leisure. Is this doable? Is forking a good idea in a mod_perl environment? Might there be another way to do it? http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Forking_and_Executing_Subproce ss the cleanup phase is also a good place to do extended processing. It does tie up the child until the processing finishes, but it at least make the client think that the response is finished (so that little moving thingy in netscape stops moving around) HTH --Geoff TIA for the help! David -- David E. Wheeler Software Engineer Salon Internet ICQ: 15726394 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: dwTheory
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
ed phillips wrote: Hi David, Check out the guide at http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Forking_and_Executing_Subprocess The Eagle book also covers the C API subprocess details on page 622-631. Let us know if the guide is unclear to you, so we can improve it. Yeah, it's a bit unclear. If I understand correctly, it's suggesting that I do a system() call and have the perl script called detach itself from Apache, yes? I'm not too sure I like this approach. I was hoping for something a little more integrated. And how much overhead are we talking about getting taken up by this approach? Using the cleanup phase, as Geoffey Young suggests, might be a bit nicer, but I'll have to look into how much time my processing will likely take, hogging up an apache fork while it finishes. Either way, I'll have to think about various ways to handle this stuff, since I'm writing it into a regular Perl module that will then be called from mod_perl... Thanks, David
Re: A really really weird use for subrequests...
On Oct 04, Luis 'Champs' de Carvalho wrote: Can i make the mod_proxy redirect using a sub-request, and still have the contents (and headers, and everything else) to let apache handle the response phase ? no. If not, how can i do this weird thing? take a look at Apache::RewritingProxy. http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=Apache-RewritingProxy jim
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
I hope it is clear that you don't want fork the whole server! Mod_cgi goes to great pains to effectively fork a subprocess, and was the major impetus I believe for the development of the C subprocess API. It (the source code for mod_cgi) is a great place to learn some of the subtleties as the Eagle book points out. As the Eagle book says, Apache is a complex beast. Mod_perl gives you the power to use the beast to your best advantage. Now you are faced with a trade off. Is it more expensive to detach a subprocess, or use the child cleanup phase to do some extra processing? I'd have to know more specifics to answer that with any modicum of confidence. Cheers, Ed "David E. Wheeler" wrote: ed phillips wrote: Hi David, Check out the guide at http://perl.apache.org/guide/performance.html#Forking_and_Executing_Subprocess The Eagle book also covers the C API subprocess details on page 622-631. Let us know if the guide is unclear to you, so we can improve it. Yeah, it's a bit unclear. If I understand correctly, it's suggesting that I do a system() call and have the perl script called detach itself from Apache, yes? I'm not too sure I like this approach. I was hoping for something a little more integrated. And how much overhead are we talking about getting taken up by this approach? Using the cleanup phase, as Geoffey Young suggests, might be a bit nicer, but I'll have to look into how much time my processing will likely take, hogging up an apache fork while it finishes. Either way, I'll have to think about various ways to handle this stuff, since I'm writing it into a regular Perl module that will then be called from mod_perl... Thanks, David
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, ed phillips wrote: Now you are faced with a trade off. Is it more expensive to detach a subprocess, or use the child cleanup phase to do some extra processing? I'd have to know more specifics to answer that with any modicum of confidence. He might try a daemon coprocesses using some IPC to communicate with Apache, which is my favorite way to do it.. - -- "The Funk, the whole Funk, and nothing but the Funk." Linux barcode software mirror: http://dadadada.net/cuecat Billy Donahue mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: pgpenvelope 2.9.0 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE525yz+2VvpwIZdF0RAjddAJ46Zxa4qHlLJuMfc1FHnS4aa7E7pwCfSFf8 MctjBHbwd8x31CAACVA98Ug= =B/EE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
ed phillips wrote: I hope it is clear that you don't want fork the whole server! Mod_cgi goes to great pains to effectively fork a subprocess, and was the major impetus I believe for the development of the C subprocess API. It (the source code for mod_cgi) is a great place to learn some of the subtleties as the Eagle book points out. As the Eagle book says, Apache is a complex beast. Mod_perl gives you the power to use the beast to your best advantage. Yeah, but I don't speak C. Just Perl. And it looks like the way to do it in Perl is to call system() and then detach the called script. I was trying to keep this all nice and tidy in modules, but I don't know if it'll be possible. Now you are faced with a trade off. Is it more expensive to detach a subprocess, or use the child cleanup phase to do some extra processing? I'd have to know more specifics to answer that with any modicum of confidence. I think I can probably evaluate that with a few tests. Thanks! David
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
Billy Donahue wrote: Now you are faced with a trade off. Is it more expensive to detach a subprocess, or use the child cleanup phase to do some extra processing? I'd have to know more specifics to answer that with any modicum of confidence. He might try a daemon coprocesses using some IPC to communicate with Apache, which is my favorite way to do it.. Yeah, I was thinking something along these lines. Don't know if I need something as complex as IPC. I was thinking of perhaps a second Apache server set up just to handle long-term processing. Then the first server could send a request to the second with the commands it needs to execute in a header. The second server processes those commands independantly of the first server, which then returns data to the browser. But maybe that's overkill. I'll have to weigh the heft of the post-request processing I need to do. Thanks for the suggestion! David
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 02:42:50PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: Yeah, I was thinking something along these lines. Don't know if I need something as complex as IPC. I was thinking of perhaps a second Apache server set up just to handle long-term processing. Then the first server could send a request to the second with the commands it needs to execute in a header. The second server processes those commands independantly of the first server, which then returns data to the browser. In a pinch, I'd just use something like a 'queue' directory. In other words, when your mod_perl code gets some info to process, it writes this into a file in a certain directory (name it with a timestamp / cksum to ensure the filename is unique). Every X seconds, have a daemon poll the directory; if it finds a file, it processes it. If not, it goes back to sleep for X seconds. I guess it's poor man's IPC. But it runs over NFS nicely, it's *very* simple, it's portable, and I've never needed anything more complex. You also don't need to fork the daemon or startup a new script every processing request. But if you need to do the processing in realtime, waiting up to X seconds for the results might be unacceptable. How does this sound? HTH, Neil -- Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get my GnuPG key from: http://klamath.dyndns.org/mykey.asc Encrypted mail welcomed It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. -- Voltaire PGP signature
redirecting large POSTs
I have an authentication scheme which checks every request for a valid cookie, and if your session has timed out redirects to a login page. After logging in, the request is resubmitted as a GET. This works great except when the original post is large--the redirect URL gets way too long (10K or more). I was thinking about saving the posted data to a temporary file and reading it back in after the login succeeds, but this seems messy and error-prone. Has anyone else had this problem? Are there any modules (maybe session mgmt stuff?) that could be easily adapted to handle this? Thanks, Chris
Disable/Enable Persistant Connections On Demand
Dear List, This may be a stupid question... but anyway... I am using mod_perl with persisent database connections enabled via Apache::DBI. This works great, because most of the web site uses a "generic" user to connect to the database. However I do authentication via the database ( i.e : attempt a connection using supplied user/pwd and if so set a cookie and continue on using the generic user/pwd) , and these "once only" connections persist too. Thus after 100 folk have logged in there are 100 ( unused ) connections. I would like to have these authentication once only connection not persist. Is there any way to "by default" use persistent connections but on occasions not ? Thanks in advance for your help Mark
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
I use a database table for the queue. No file locking issues, atomic transactions, you can sort and order the jobs, etc . . . you can wrap the entire "queue" library in a module. Plus, the background script that processes the queue can easily run with higher permissions, and you don't have to worry as much with setuid issues when forking from a parent process (like your apache) running as a user with less priviledges than what you (may) need. You can pass all the args you need to via a column in the db, and, if passing data back and forth is a must, serialize your data using Storable and have the queue runner thaw it back out. Very simple, very fast, very powerful. On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 02:42:50PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: Yeah, I was thinking something along these lines. Don't know if I need something as complex as IPC. I was thinking of perhaps a second Apache server set up just to handle long-term processing. Then the first server could send a request to the second with the commands it needs to execute in a header. The second server processes those commands independantly of the first server, which then returns data to the browser. In a pinch, I'd just use something like a 'queue' directory. In other words, when your mod_perl code gets some info to process, it writes this into a file in a certain directory (name it with a timestamp / cksum to ensure the filename is unique). Every X seconds, have a daemon poll the directory; if it finds a file, it processes it. If not, it goes back to sleep for X seconds. I guess it's poor man's IPC. But it runs over NFS nicely, it's *very* simple, it's portable, and I've never needed anything more complex. You also don't need to fork the daemon or startup a new script every processing request. But if you need to do the processing in realtime, waiting up to X seconds for the results might be unacceptable. How does this sound? HTH, Neil -- Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get my GnuPG key from: http://klamath.dyndns.org/mykey.asc Encrypted mail welcomed It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. -- Voltaire
RE: Apache::Session - kludgy workaround?
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Jerrad Pierce wrote: Reading the directions ;-) Apache::Session doesn't do any deep checking, if a top level doesn't value doesn't change it may not detect the change. This is why your workaround works... The offically recommend workaround (I believe) is to keep a timestamp as a top level value in the hash... You may also force saving of a session via: tied(%session)-make_modified(); There is a complete object interface to Apache::Session but you have to read Session.pm to explore it. -jwb
Re: Forking in mod_perl?
David E. Wheeler writes: Using the cleanup phase, as Geoffey Young suggests, might be a bit nicer, but I'll have to look into how much time my processing will likely take, hogging up an apache fork while it finishes. I've wondered about this as well. I really like the cleanup handler, and thought that in general it would be better to tie up the httpd process and let apache decide when a new process is needed rather than always forking. For the most part I use the cleanup handlers to handle something that takes alot of time, but doesn't happen very often. If I had something that took alot of time every time someone hit a page I still don't think I'd fork, instead I'd pass off the information to another process and let that process run through the data asynchronously like a spooler... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
