Before I forget to say anything:
Ask, haven't you set up a basic Mason framework for the *.perl.org sites
that an apache.perl.org could just piggyback onto? Stas, I think that was
why Nat suggested Mason - not that using Mason would necessarily make
anything better itself, but that we could g
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> if I understand correctly the current code uses a single instance of the
> LWP's UA object. For one of the registry tests I need .t to drive .pm
> response handler, which in turn touch'es the files and need to be able
> to generate its own "sub-request
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> > you can use a cleanup in r->pool.
>
> Now, how do you do that ?
apr_pool_cleanup_register()
> Yes, absolutely what the problem is. Wouldn't it be possible for mod_perl to allocate
> it's own sub-pool off of r->pool or s->pool ,keep track
if I understand correctly the current code uses a single instance of the
LWP's UA object. For one of the registry tests I need .t to drive .pm
response handler, which in turn touch'es the files and need to be able
to generate its own "sub-requests", so is it better to try to use a
subrequest o
Ken Williams wrote:
> Before I forget to say anything:
>
> Ask, haven't you set up a basic Mason framework for the *.perl.org sites
> that an apache.perl.org could just piggyback onto? Stas, I think that
> was why Nat suggested Mason - not that using Mason would necessarily
> make anything b
Alexander Pavlovic wrote:
> Hello dev list,
>
> We are having a bit of debate at work as to what framework we should use
> for testing modperl enabled modules, i.e. writing module test cases
> intiated
> by make test. Apache::test seems to work quite nicely it even pushes your
> local blib path
