On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Gerald Richter wrote:
> So for mod_perl is maybe always safe to say $mod_perl::VERSION >= 1.99 if
> $mod_perl::VERSION is a number and will never be a string. The regex thing
> is just precaution, because of bad experinces in the past.
As long as we only put letters at the en
>
> split? regex? huh?
>
> if ($mod_perl::VERSION >= 1.99) {
> #this is 2.x
> }
> else {
>#this is 1.x
> }
>
One the one side you are right, but I had some bad experiences with doing
floating point comparisons on version numbers. The one thing was, that due
to locale settings your decim
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Gerald Richter wrote:
> $mod_perl::VERSION returns 1.9903, which is the same or similar then
> $ENV{MOD_PERL} which I using right now, but you need to split it with a
> regex and compare, and a 1 before the point is mod_perl 2 if after the point
> it start with 99, not ver
>
> Gerald, I've started:
>
http://perl.apache.org/release/docs/2.0/devel/porting_from_1.x/porting_from_
1.x.html
> which already covers some of the porting bits (like $mod_perl::VERSION).
$mod_perl::VERSION returns 1.9903, which is the same or similar then
$ENV{MOD_PERL} which I using right now,
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, Gerald, if you are using compat, you can still use the 1.0's
>>Apache::Registry. So you don't really need to conditional.
>
>
> he does if 1.x is not installed.
True. I didn't think there was a possibility of not hav
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> BTW, Gerald, if you are using compat, you can still use the 1.0's
> Apache::Registry. So you don't really need to conditional.
he does if 1.x is not installed.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mai
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't finished porting the registry family. When I'm done there will
>>be no need for Apache::compat to run ModPerl::Registry. Why would you need
>>to know whether you are running under Apache::Registry or
>>ModPerl::Regi
>>The otherthing is the test suite, which need to know which version we are
>>using and startup.pl need to decide to load Apache::Registry or
>>ModPerl::Registry. I currently check $ENV{MOD_PERL}, is there a better way
>>to decide, if we are running under mod_perl, something like
>>$ModPerl::Majo
>
> gerald is talking about configuring the httpd.conf to use one or the other
> for testing. one thing we could do is have modperl add a MODPERL2 define
> internally, as if the server has been started with -DMODPERL2. that can
> be used with in .conf files and with
> if Apache->define("MODPERL
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > I haven't finished porting the registry family. When I'm done there will
> > be no need for Apache::compat to run ModPerl::Registry. Why would you need
> > to know whether you are running under Apache::Reg
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I haven't finished porting the registry family. When I'm done there will
> be no need for Apache::compat to run ModPerl::Registry. Why would you need
> to know whether you are running under Apache::Registry or
> ModPerl::Registry? they are absolutely the
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Gerald Richter wrote:
> avoid all of the mod_perl 2 conditions in Embperl itself. The only thing
> that is missing at the moment and I think you should add it, is a
>
> require Apache::SubRequest ;
>
> otherwise $r -> lookup_uri etc doesn't work.
this is in compat.pm now.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Gerald Richter wrote:
> The otherthing is the test suite, which need to know which version we are
> using and startup.pl need to decide to load Apache::Registry or
> ModPerl::Registry. I currently check $ENV{MOD_PERL}, is there a better way
> to decide, if we are running under
>
> you should retry. even though it isn't the default yet,
> 'PerlModule Apache2' is a noop if modules were installed in the default
> locations. so there is no harm in always having it configured.
>
ok, I will try this, when I get a free time slot, jsut have to mange some
other things before.
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> ...
> you should instead use the
> MP_INST_APACHE2=1 option, then you can use the modperl-2.0/blib with
> PerlModule Apache2 configured.
>
> also thinking about making MP_INST_APACHE2 the default. any thoughts on
> that?
If this becomes the default (uncontrollable
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Gerald Richter wrote:
> I don't use this option, because it's not the default and I want to test the
> default case (at least for the moment) and when I last tried it (ok, this
> was long ago) it didn't work, because it is not the default and it seems
> that at this time nobo
Hi,
>
> i'd rather not add this, simply because i'd like to see as few build
> options as possible in 2.0. the pile of build options in 1.x has led to a
> great deal of confusion and mess. you should instead use the
> MP_INST_APACHE2=1 option, then you can use the modperl-2.0/blib with
> PerlMod
On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Gerald Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Makefile.PL doesn't run when mod_perl 1.x is already installed. I like to be
> able to do it anyway, so I can afterwards set PERL5LIB to mod_perl's blib,
> so I don't need to maintain another Perl installation (I already have enough
> different
18 matches
Mail list logo
