Re: [Re: [Re: again - more then one PerlTransHandler]]

[Andrei A. Voropaev]

I believe this should be reflected in the documentation. Because after
reading Eagle book one gets absolutely different understanding. It
doesn't diffirentiate Perl stacked handlers and Apache handlers. From
Doug's words (and from practice :) those are slightly different in the
way how their return codes are treated.

BTW. Do I understand it correctly now that if my PERL handler returns
either OK or DECLINED then the next PERL handler (if
any) for this phase will be called anyway, but Apache "native" handlers
will be called depending on what is the phase. Ie. for URL translation the
"native" handler will be called only if last Perl handler returned DECLINED.

Andrei


On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 01:45:40PM -0800, Doug MacEachern wrote:
  At least that's what I thought !
  
  In fact now Apache lets me use more then one 
  PerlTransHandler, but it doesn't care
  of what is the return codes are!!!
  
  Even I return OK, it still calls
  next registered handlers. Really weird!
 
 mod_perl does care.  but, mod_perl stacked handlers are not quite the same
 as Apache C handlers.  unless the return status from a Perl handler is
 something other than OK or DECLINED, mod_perl propagates the status code
 of the last handler run back up to Apache.
 originally, stacked handlers were introduced for chaining multiple content
 handlers.  if the OK status from the first handler was propagated back to
 Apache, there would be no chain, and little use for stacked handlers.
 
 you can always override this behavior by using a single Perl*Handler which
 decides what path to take based on the return status, or use a
 PerlDispatchHandler, or PerlDirectiveHandlers, to name a few.
 
 

-- 

Re: [Re: [Re: again - more then one PerlTransHandler]]

[Doug MacEachern]

 At least that's what I thought !
 
 In fact now Apache lets me use more then one 
 PerlTransHandler, but it doesn't care
 of what is the return codes are!!!
 
 Even I return OK, it still calls
 next registered handlers. Really weird!

mod_perl does care.  but, mod_perl stacked handlers are not quite the same
as Apache C handlers.  unless the return status from a Perl handler is
something other than OK or DECLINED, mod_perl propagates the status code
of the last handler run back up to Apache.
originally, stacked handlers were introduced for chaining multiple content
handlers.  if the OK status from the first handler was propagated back to
Apache, there would be no chain, and little use for stacked handlers.

you can always override this behavior by using a single Perl*Handler which
decides what path to take based on the return status, or use a
PerlDispatchHandler, or PerlDirectiveHandlers, to name a few.

Re: [Re: [Re: again - more then one PerlTransHandler]]

[Evgenii Bazarov]

Thanks for the answers!

I was using RedHat rpm and it was giving the problem
as it was suggested. After I built mod_perl with apache
(mod_perl 1.21, apache 1.3.9, the problem was resolved. 

At least that's what I thought !

In fact now Apache lets me use more then one 
PerlTransHandler, but it doesn't care
of what is the return codes are!!!

Even I return OK, it still calls
next registered handlers. Really weird!

Thanks!
Evg

Eric Cholet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, you wrote:
 Waa!!! So far nobody who answered even doubted that
 it should be possible to have more then one 
 PerlTransHandler. The "Eagle" book also says
 that it should be possible. People suggested that
 either my mod_perl built with wrong flags or I messed
 up return codes OK/DECLINED (which I didn't!).
 
 Is what you saying documented somewhere?!!!

Here's a simple test I just ran (with the CVS version of mod_perl, but 1.21
should work as well, although I haven't tested it):

Foo.pm:
package Foo;
sub handler
{
$r = shift;
$r-warn("Foo translating " . $r-uri);
return DECLINED;
}
1;

Bar.pm:
package Bar;
sub handler
{
$r = shift;
$r-warn("Bar translating " . $r-uri);
return DECLINED;
}
1;

in httpd.conf:
PerlTransHandler +Foo
PerlTransHandler +Bar

after accessing the server, in error.log:
[Fri Dec 17 00:44:22 1999] [warn] Foo translating /
[Fri Dec 17 00:44:22 1999] [warn] Bar translating /

So yes it's possible to have several TransHandlers.

--
Eric Cholet



Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1