Doug MacEachern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, James G Smith wrote:
The current code I have uses %INC, but I wanted to write
something like the following:
sub use : immediate {
# do stuff here if logging
return CORE::use(@_);
}
you could just override
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, James G Smith wrote:
The current code I have uses %INC, but I wanted to write
something like the following:
sub use : immediate {
# do stuff here if logging
return CORE::use(@_);
}
you could just override CORE::GLOBAL::require. you don't need to
override the
James G Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect on 07/02/2001:
How would something like this do:
NAME
Apache::Use
SYNOPSIS
use Apache::Use (Logger = DB, File = /www/apache/logs/modules);
DESCRIPTION
Apache::Use will record the modules used over the course of the
darren chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James G Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect on 07/02/2001:
How would something like this do:
NAME
Apache::Use
SYNOPSIS
use Apache::Use (Logger = DB, File = /www/apache/logs/modules);
DESCRIPTION
Apache::Use will
James G Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect on 07/03/2001:
darren chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James G Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect on 07/02/2001:
Apache::Use
You can get this information from %INC, can't you? e.g.:
Most definitely.
On Tuesday 03 July 2001 16:46, darren chamberlain wrote:
James G Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something to this effect:
The current code I have uses %INC, but I wanted to write
something like the following:
sub use : immediate {
# do stuff here if logging
return CORE::use(@_);
How would something like this do:
NAME
Apache::Use
SYNOPSIS
use Apache::Use (Logger = DB, File = /www/apache/logs/modules);
DESCRIPTION
Apache::Use will record the modules used over the course of the
Perl interpreter's lifetime. If the logging module is able, the
old logs are read and
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Steven Lembark wrote:
Note that if they do get called this will end up using more memory than if
you had just loaded them during startup, since they won't be shared between
child processes.
Original assumption is that they are called infrequently. You'll also find
On Friday, June 29, 2001, at 07:25 , Shawn Devlin wrote:
What advantages do I gain by grouping the functions based on
functionality? As per my response to Mr. Worrall, one of my concerns
with placing each function call into its own module is the amount of
memory used by the various .pm
memory used by the various .pm files that will be loaded numerous
times. I can see that grouping functions based on functionality would
reduce the number of .pm files in memory. However, if I go that route,
use only loads the .pm once. Multiple uses don't eat up any more resource
than
The minimal-module approach can be managed nicely via Autosplit, which
puts eash sub in its own module with a stub AUTOLOAD that snags things
into core only when they are called
Note that if they do get called this will end up using more memory than if
you had just loaded them during startup,
Note that if they do get called this will end up using more memory than if
you had just loaded them during startup, since they won't be shared between
child processes.
Original assumption is that they are called infrequently. You'll also find
that the amount of memory sucked up by a
Adam Worrall wrote:
SD == Shawn Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SD My first thought is to break the API up so that there is a
SD module per API call (there are some 70 calls in the API). My
SD reasoning is that I can modify existing calls and add new ones
SD without affecting
James G Smith wrote:
[snip]
My first thought is to break the API up so that there is a module per
API call (there are some 70 calls in the API). My reasoning is that I
can modify existing calls and add new ones without affecting everything
else. Does this make sense or is it better to have
Joe Breeden
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Devlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 1:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: API Design Question
Adam Worrall wrote:
SD == Shawn Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SD My first thought is to break
- Original Message -
From: Shawn Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: API Design Question
What I like about this is I can add a new function without needing to
disturb the existing code. Also, each function call
Hello all,
I have an CGI based HTTP API (in Perl) to a database and I am now going
to port to mod_perl. I am new to this kind of programming and I have a
couple of questions. The platform is Linux.
My first thought is to break the API up so that there is a module per
API call (there are some
17 matches
Mail list logo
