At 03:33 PM 12/23/2001, brian moseley wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, brian moseley wrote:
>
>
> > doesn't it seem like there should be a way to denote
> > object data as transient so that it doesn't get
> > serialized by Storable, etc?
>
>dammit, i keep deleting peoples' replies before i am able to
At 10:55 PM 12/22/2001, brian moseley wrote:
>Apache::Singleton::Server got me thinking about Cache::Cache
>and locking again. if i'm going to have a server-global
>object, i am going to need to protect against multiple
>processes updating it simultaneously, right?
>
>we've already talked about t
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, brian moseley wrote:
> doesn't it seem like there should be a way to denote
> object data as transient so that it doesn't get
> serialized by Storable, etc?
dammit, i keep deleting peoples' replies before i am able to
reply to them myself.
gunther's suggestion was to use m
At 10:19 PM 12/22/2001, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:11:33AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
>
> > doesn't it seem like there should be a way to denote object
> > data as transient so that it doesn't get serialized by
> > Storable, etc?
>
>I'd love that as well. For example, when
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, brian moseley wrote:
> i can't believe i never thought to ask this in 4 years,
> but: do any of you hang out on irc anywhere in
> particular? shouldn't there be a #mod_perl somewhere, if
> there isn't already?
hmm.. i went to #take23 on openprojects and there were 3
people i
Thomas Eibner wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:21:00AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
>
>>i can't believe i never thought to ask this in 4 years, but:
>>do any of you hang out on irc anywhere in particular?
>>shouldn't there be a #mod_perl somewhere, if there isn't
>>already?
>>
>
>We used to hang
Hi there,
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Boex,Matthew W. wrote:
> CGI.pm: Server closed socket during multipart read (client aborted?)
[snip]
> i get this error as soon as i hit my "upload" [snip] files that are
> between 10-40k are no problem. when i upload 100-400k, i get this
Might be $CGI::POST_MAX
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Gerald Menzel wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "mod_Perl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Can't locate object method "dir_config" via package
> "Apach
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 06:55:15 -0800 (PST)
brian moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache::Singleton::Server got me thinking about Cache::Cache
> and locking again. if i'm going to have a server-global
> object, i am going to need to protect against multiple
> processes updating it simultaneous
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Kobes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "mod_Perl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Can't locate object method "dir_config" via package
"Apache::RegistryFilter"
> - Original Message -
>
> >
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:23:30 -0500
DeWitt Clinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One instance for one server (across all httpd processes).
> > Implemented using Cache::SharedMemoryCache (IPC).
>
> Maybe you want to consider directly using Cache::SharedMemoryBackend
> instead of the SharedMemoryC
At Sat, 22 Dec 2001 06:55:15 -0800 (PST) , brian moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>if locking is necessary in some instances, even if we can
>only contrive theoretical examples right now, how might it
>be done in a performant way, especially for objects that can
>be modified multiple times whil
On Saturday 22 December 2001 17:42, Thomas Eibner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:21:00AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
> > i can't believe i never thought to ask this in 4 years, but:
> > do any of you hang out on irc anywhere in particular?
> > shouldn't there be a #mod_perl somewhere, if ther
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:25:51PM -0800, Cure wrote:
> On irc.dal.net, theres a #mod_perl, Nobody goes there anyomore, But we all
> could start joining it.
Please, no more networks =) I think something like #modperl would be
appropriate on rhizomatic, but it's not up to me.
--
Thomas Eibner
Thomas Eibner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:21:00AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
> >
> > i can't believe i never thought to ask this in 4 years, but:
> > do any of you hang out on irc anywhere in particular?
> > shouldn't there be a #mod_perl somewhere, if there isn't
>
- Original Message -
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:32:24 +0100
> From: Gerald Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Can't locate object method "dir_config" via package
> "Apache::RegistryFilter"
>
> I have a problem with Apache::RegistryFilter. I can't get it to
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:21:00AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
>
> i can't believe i never thought to ask this in 4 years, but:
> do any of you hang out on irc anywhere in particular?
> shouldn't there be a #mod_perl somewhere, if there isn't
> already?
We used to hang on #Take23 on Openprojects
Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2001, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
>
>>>"DR" == Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
It's called current_callback().
>>DR> Grr, its not documented when I do 'perldoc Apache'.
>>
>>There's a lot of stuff not so documented. The mod_perl book has muc
i can't believe i never thought to ask this in 4 years, but:
do any of you hang out on irc anywhere in particular?
shouldn't there be a #mod_perl somewhere, if there isn't
already?
Apache::Singleton::Server got me thinking about Cache::Cache
and locking again. if i'm going to have a server-global
object, i am going to need to protect against multiple
processes updating it simultaneously, right?
we've already talked about this in regards to sessions. most
folks seem to feel
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 10:39:03PM +0900, Tatsuhiko Miyagawa wrote:
> One instance for one server (across all httpd processes).
> Implemented using Cache::SharedMemoryCache (IPC).
Maybe you want to consider directly using Cache::SharedMemoryBackend
instead of the SharedMemoryCache class. The fu
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:11:33AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
> doesn't it seem like there should be a way to denote object
> data as transient so that it doesn't get serialized by
> Storable, etc?
I'd love that as well. For example, when persisting Cache::Object
instances I manually strip out
doesn't it seem like there should be a way to denote object
data as transient so that it doesn't get serialized by
Storable, etc?
i've solved this problem in the past by writing a
class-specific serialization method that undefs things i
don't want serialized. but it seems like something that the
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Tatsuhiko Miyagawa wrote:
> Note that multiple process cannot share blessed reference without
> serialization, so *One instance for one server* is just an idea.
> What it means is, one instance for one process, and multiple
> instances with sha
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:04:11 +0900
Tatsuhiko Miyagawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now it uses pnotes(). Todo is to add scope configuration for each
> classes.
Added subclasses with own object lifetime configuration.
I myself am just a little dubious about its implementation,
especially for "Ser
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:51:30 -0500
"Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Like this? (using register_cleanup instead of pnotes)
>
> Better to use pnotes. I started out doing this kind of thing with
> register_cleanup and had problems like random segfaults. I think it was
> because ot
26 matches
Mail list logo
