Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Does a CGI always run with a socket as STDOUT?
> (in that running with a CGI-faked ENV as part of a pipe in a
> cron job is going to look awfuly like being run from a web
> server)
>
> Or will there be servers that run the CGI with the output to
> a pipe and in turn pump
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:20:49 +0100
"Newton, Philip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, the Xitami web server (at least on Win32 systems) doesn't output any of
> the CGI's output to the client until the CGI is done, so perhaps it
> implements CGI with STDOUT directed to a file, which it then reads
Nicholas Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on 15 January 2002 21:42:
> I believe that ithreads were "experimental" in 5.6
> (in that there was no perl level interface to make a thread, but the
> underlying ithreads mechanism is what is used to fake fork() on Windows)
Fake fork() sounds use
Ivor Williams writes:
> Nicholas Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on 15 January 2002 21:42:
>
> > I believe that ithreads were "experimental" in 5.6
> > (in that there was no perl level interface to make a thread, but the
> > underlying ithreads mechanism is what is used to fake fork(
Sam Vilain wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:20:49 +0100
> "Newton, Philip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > FYI, the Xitami web server (at least on Win32 systems)
> > doesn't output any of the CGI's output to the client
> > until the CGI is done, so perhaps it implements CGI
> > with STDOUT direc
On 9 Jan I wrote:
> I have, foolishly, volunteered to be the Group Travel Organising Tsar for
> this. Please could people contact me off-list by the end of the week if
> they are interested in going. Let me know if you are definitely going,
> or if you are merely interested in going.
There has
This has probably been floating around forever, but I'd never seen it
before just now, and it's cracking me up.
http://www.suberic.net/~dmm/perlsong.html
"To the tune of "Girls" by the Beastie Boys"
hehe...
--
Chris Devers
"People with machines that think, will in times of crisis,
make up s
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 07:03, Newton, Philip wrote:
> AFAIK, Apache manages to pass content along to the client as soon as it
> receives it from the CGI program, even on Win32.
Nope, at least not yet. It's been going to be fixed in the next release
for quite a while.
2.0 though. Yep, it'll b
I know a few people have been muttering about technical meetings, and I
did say it was 'provisionally' on the 17th. However, due to me being
rubbish at this leadership lark, the meeting's only just getting
finalised. So, barring any last minute problems (sorry, Dave [0], I
couldn't bring myself to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:52:11PM +, Paul Mison wrote:
>[technical meeting]
> At: Codix.net (where we held the last one)
> On: Thursday 24th January, probably at 7pm (will confirm)
>
> So far we have three speakers;
Who, about what, and for how long?
--
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
i was just fooling about with WWW::Search::Scraper::Google, and come
across odd problems. am i just having late-night code blindness, and does
anyone here know that source tree well? i've spent a lot of the last
couple of hours trailing through WWW::Search* trying to see what's going
wrong.
(inc
11 matches
Mail list logo
