Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: What do you mean it has no clear utility, you've just heard John complaining on the users list that 'apachectl configtest' wasn't invoking mod_perl setup. Unless you think that suggesting to use the section hack is the best we can come up with. actually, I think that his ex

Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Geoffrey Young
> What do you mean it has no clear utility, you've just heard John > complaining on the users list that 'apachectl configtest' wasn't > invoking mod_perl setup. Unless you think that suggesting to use the > section hack is the best we can come up with. actually, I think that his expectations are

Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: [...] Meaning that you need to document that one needs to do: PerlLoadModule Foo which is just as well, could be documented as: PerlStartNow PerlModule Foo especially if we are going to add PerlStartNow anyway (are we?). well, something about that strikes me as dangerou

Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Geoffrey Young
> That's exactly what will happen if a user will use PerlModule instead of > PerlLoadModule at the moment. It'll silently fail. yes. but in some circumstances the failure might not be silent - directive handlers would fail because httpd would croak, for example. but you're right, there is a dan

Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: In which case why having two directives, if they do the same thing? Drop PerlLoadModule completely and have a new directive that will start the interpreter on demand, add the new API to Apache::Module. Won't that solve the problem? not really. the issue that started this d

Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Geoffrey Young
Stas Bekman wrote: > Geoffrey Young wrote: > >> continuing from modperl@ >> >> >>> In this thread you were trying to make >>> PerlLoadModule do what it wasn't designed for. >> >> >> >> that's an oversimplification and somewhat belittling. >> >> PerlLoadModule does a few things: >> >> - starts

Re: PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Stas Bekman
Geoffrey Young wrote: continuing from modperl@ In this thread you were trying to make PerlLoadModule do what it wasn't designed for. that's an oversimplification and somewhat belittling. PerlLoadModule does a few things: - starts up an interpreter That's a side effect, not the design goal.

PerlModule versus PerlLoadModule

2004-04-27 Thread Geoffrey Young
continuing from modperl@ > In this thread you were trying to make > PerlLoadModule do what it wasn't designed for. that's an oversimplification and somewhat belittling. PerlLoadModule does a few things: - starts up an interpreter - requires a module, thus running module init code - insert