On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I was thinking that it'd be really cool to have the
> core- and wanna-be-core-developers get together and
> discuss the plans for 2.0, may be have some details
> kindly explained by Doug. I'd love to have code overview
> to get me started. I believe other
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > - do we need modperl_use_module() to implement CORE::use
>
> into what namespace would things be imported?
true, no import() is needed other than for modules that use import() to do
various initialization/
While we are all at TPC:
I was thinking that it'd be really cool to have the core- and
wanna-be-core-developers get together and discuss the plans for 2.0, may
be have some details kindly explained by Doug. I'd love to have code
overview to get me started. I believe others will be interested as w
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> My thought was that, since you are already implementing directive handlers,
> register it with the fixup phase when you generate the XS (or whatever, as
> you pointed out in the other reply). This way the only change to httpd.conf
> is a single "Perl
>-Original Message-
>From: Doug MacEachern
>To: Geoffrey Young
>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Sent: 7/16/01 8:53 PM
>Subject: Re: directive handlers in 2.0
>
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>> hi doug...
>>
>> what's the game plan for directive handlers in 2.0. I was playing
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> well, I was kinda thinking along the lines of having command_table() write
> out the module record using a generic subroutine to handle a given phase
> plus the name of the handler (if you can pass arguments to the subroutines
> there, I didn't invest
On 16 Jul 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> However you still need PerlModule AxKit, to load the .so (actually even
> that's slightly incorrect - I have it working so you can do LoadModule
> /path/to/AxKit.so).
eek, why would you want to use 'LoadModule /path/to/AxKit.so' rather than
'PerlModule AxK
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hi doug...
>
> what's the game plan for directive handlers in 2.0. I was playing around
> with them in 1.3 quite heavily last week and found myself wondering if it
> wouldn't be cool to have a generic mechanism that you could slip into the
> module
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> So is modperl_require_module() is used only for CORE::require()? If so
at the moment, yes.
> - do we need modperl_use_module() to implement CORE::use
into what namespace would things be imported?
> - should it be based on modperl_require_module() an
>-Original Message-
>From: Matt Sergeant
>To: Geoffrey Young
>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Sent: 7/16/01 6:32 PM
>Subject: Re: directive handlers in 2.0
>
>On 16 Jul 2001 14:46:45 -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>> hi doug...
>>
>> what's the game plan for directive handlers in 2.0. I was
On 16 Jul 2001 14:46:45 -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hi doug...
>
> what's the game plan for directive handlers in 2.0. I was playing around
> with them in 1.3 quite heavily last week and found myself wondering if it
> wouldn't be cool to have a generic mechanism that you could slip into the
hi doug...
what's the game plan for directive handlers in 2.0. I was playing around
with them in 1.3 quite heavily last week and found myself wondering if it
wouldn't be cool to have a generic mechanism that you could slip into the
module record that would allow you to dispense with the Perl*H
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> you can end up with a long file with various PerlTrace settings. Instead
> of scrolling back and forth and remembering what bits very set before, why
> not just switching off the unwanted bits?
i guess this is what i'm having trouble seeing. personally
13 matches
Mail list logo
