[PATCH lib/Apache/compat.pm] hinting on missing Apache::Module

2002-06-25 Thread Stas Bekman
As you can see at the attached below correspondance, some people try to use Apache::compat without having mod_perl 1.0 installed, and things don't work as expected. So at least this patch hints on how to solve the problem. Index: lib/Apache/compat.pm ===

Re: Apache::PhaseName::ModuleName convention?

2002-06-25 Thread Per Einar Ellefsen
At 15:52 25.06.2002, Tim Bunce wrote: >On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 01:28:25PM +0200, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: > > At 12:26 25.06.2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > > > > > >And... In all seriousness I don't see how the "three level names" > > >will help much. The tricky and important part is to descri

Re: Apache::PhaseName::ModuleName convention?

2002-06-25 Thread Per Einar Ellefsen
At 12:26 25.06.2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: >On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > >[...] > > I thought it was just because Tim (I think it was; cc'ed) likes it > > better that way. =) Maybe there's a more technical explanation. > > Tim? > >And... In all seriousness I don't see how th

Apache::LOG_TOCLIENT not working? or httpd problem.

2002-06-25 Thread Stas Bekman
Has anybody tried to use the Apache::LOG_TOCLIENT constant in 2.0? It's supposed to tell log_rerror() to send the error to the client in addition to logging it. I'm trying: $r->log_rerror(Apache::LOG_MARK, Apache::LOG_ERR|Apache::LOG_TOCLIENT, APR::ENOTIME, "request lo

Re: Apache::PhaseName::ModuleName convention?

2002-06-25 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: [...] > I thought it was just because Tim (I think it was; cc'ed) likes it > better that way. =) Maybe there's a more technical explanation. > Tim? And... In all seriousness I don't see how the "three level names" will help much. The tricky and imp

Re: Apache::PhaseName::ModuleName convention?

2002-06-25 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Doug MacEachern wrote: > >Apache::PostConfig::Whatever > > instead of: > >Apache::PostConfigWhatever > > that's up to you for your examples. but i personally won't be changing to > that convention. true facts that another level of namespace eat more > memory and tak