both are pretty close, i've tested both on linux, solaris and hpux and
1.99_02 on win32 only. with various perl flavors. if anybody has a
chance to run some make tests with cvs or the snapshots below, that'd be
appreciated as always...
http://perl.apache.org/~dougm/mod_perl-1.26_01-dev.tar.g
"perl-script" is exactly what you've in 1.0
"modperl" is the bare bones. See the tests in t/ that run under
"modperl" and you will understand what's the difference.
SOme time in the future I'll run some benchmarks and will post the
results. modperl should be faster than "perl-script".
__
At 00:23 23.05.2002, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>
>>At 23:42 22.05.2002, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>>
>>>Doug MacEachern wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>We don't have the difference between
> SetHandler perl-script
>and
> SetHand
Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
> At 23:42 22.05.2002, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>
>> Doug MacEachern wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>>>
We don't have the difference between
SetHandler perl-script
and
SetHandler modperl
documented.
>>>
>>>
>>> in a nutsh
At 23:56 22.05.2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>At 23:42 22.05.2002, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>>Doug MacEachern wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>>>
We don't have the difference between
SetHandler perl-script
and
SetHandler modperl
documented.
>>>
>>>in
At 23:42 22.05.2002, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>>
>>>We don't have the difference between
>>> SetHandler perl-script
>>>and
>>> SetHandler modperl
>>>documented.
>>
>>in a nutshell, 'perl-script' does everything it did in 1.x
>>'
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>We don't have the difference between
>> SetHandler perl-script
>>and
>> SetHandler modperl
>>documented.
>>
>
>in a nutshell, 'perl-script' does everything it did in 1.x
>'modperl' does nothing special, just the callback.
>
c
At 21:43 22.05.2002, Doug MacEachern wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > In any case if the wrapper is used, the scripts won't work under
> > mod_cgi. On the other hand if File::Basename::dirname() is used
> > explicitly the script will still work with mod_cgi.
>
>good point. we
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> In any case if the wrapper is used, the scripts won't work under
> mod_cgi. On the other hand if File::Basename::dirname() is used
> explicitly the script will still work with mod_cgi.
good point. we should probably not bother providing something spe
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> We don't have the difference between
>SetHandler perl-script
> and
>SetHandler modperl
> documented.
in a nutshell, 'perl-script' does everything it did in 1.x
'modperl' does nothing special, just the callback.
> implies:
>
> * PerlOptions +Glo
> BTW, why modperl_env_request_populate() is called only for perl-script
> handler and not for modperl?
I've figured this one out. That means that if you run under SetHandler
"modperl" there is no way to 'Options +SetupEnv' and "perl-script" is
the only option. I guess this is how it should be
i'm working on the issue with chdir, which we cannot use in 2.0, because
it's not thread-safe.
The issue of require() and friends when they use relative paths is
easily resolved by pushing the script's dir as the first element of @INC.
The big issue is the open() call when it tries to open a f
We don't have the difference between
SetHandler perl-script
and
SetHandler modperl
documented.
Source code wise it seems that modperl_response_handler_cgi is what
makes them different. I've started documenting the difference, but I
don't understand everything and need help. Here is the sta
13 matches
Mail list logo
