On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 09:36:44AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "ES" == E S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ES> Why's that? I'm relatively new to mod_perl, at least in the sense of what
> ES> I've been using it for - what're the advantages of going with the direct
> ES> handler interface as
> "ES" == E S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ES> Why's that? I'm relatively new to mod_perl, at least in the sense of what
ES> I've been using it for - what're the advantages of going with the direct
ES> handler interface as opposed to registry?
We had a big discussion about this about a month
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Devin Ben-Hur wrote:
> Scott Thomason wrote:
> > So, given that, here's the question again: why would you choose Apache::Registry
>over FastCGI? I want to be a believer...
>
> First, I don't really recommend Registry, if you're serious about your
> system you should use t
Scott Thomason wrote:
> So, given that, here's the question again: why would you choose Apache::Registry
>over FastCGI? I want to be a believer...
First, I don't really recommend Registry, if you're serious about your
system you should use the direct handler interface and not just port a
bunch o
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Scott Thomason wrote:
> So, given that, here's the question again: why would you choose
> Apache::Registry over FastCGI?
If you're developing from scratch, why would you choose Apache::Registry
at all when you can write directly to the Apache API with a mod_perl
handler?
But
Actually, I recently finished a FastCGI authenticator. The mod_fastcgi module provides
the equivalent hooks into the Apache authentication mechanism. It allows you to
configure httpd.conf in a manner nearly identical to normal basic authentication. But
the question remains: for speed, why Apach
> "ST" == Scott Thomason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ST> in the past, and spent many agonizing hours cleaning up one-shot
ST> CGI scripts so they would work (and on some, I just plain gave up
ST> and let them run slow). Last project, I gave FastCGI a whirl (via
I wonder how these scripts on
There was a recent article in WebTechniques comparing the two
http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2000/05/infrrevu/
-Original Message-
From: Scott Thomason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: re: mod_perl vs. FastCGI
You
You said:
> Most people on this list probably have already determined that
> mod_perl is better for their own needs. That`s why I`m here, at
> least.
>
> But "better" is a very subjective term, and you need to define your
> parameters. What are your goals, what are your constraints, what is
> yo
"Scott Thomason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know this must have been discussed before, but a mailing list archive search on
>"fastcgi" didn't turn up much. What guidelines do you folks follow to determine
>whether FastCGI or Apache::Registry is a better choice?
I've 90% written a little
> "ST" == Scott Thomason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ST> I know this must have been discussed before, but a mailing list
ST> archive search on "fastcgi" didn't turn up much. What guidelines
ST> do you folks follow to determine whether FastCGI or
ST> Apache::Registry is a better choice?
Most
11 matches
Mail list logo
