On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Siracusa wrote:
> On 10/31/99 4:23 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > Well I'll show by example. Take slash (the perl scripts for slashdot.org)
>
> I'm assuming you wanted this read like the classic:
>
> "Take my wife...please!"
>
> I mean, have you actually looked at the cod
Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.slashdot.org/code.shtml
>
> It's a horror show, truly. Return values go unchecked, quoting
> operators are ignored, subroutine naming conventions are
> nonexistent, "use" statements are buried in subroutines as if
> they were runtime directive
On 10/31/99 4:23 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Well I'll show by example. Take slash (the perl scripts for slashdot.org)
I'm assuming you wanted this read like the classic:
"Take my wife...please!"
I mean, have you actually looked at the code here?
http://www.slashdot.org/code.shtml
It's
According to Matt Sergeant:
> Well I'll show by example. Take slash (the perl scripts for slashdot.org) -
> it's got a web front end and now available is an NNTP front end. Wouldn't
> it be nice to run both in-process under mod_perl, so you could easily
> communicate between the two, use the same
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> According to Matt Sergeant:
>
> > > >Would it be possible to have a generic server, like Apache, but not just
> > > >for HTTP - something that could also serve up NNTP connections, FTP
> > > >connections, etc. It seems to me at first look this should
At 19:57 -0500 1999-10-29, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> However you didn't explain why you would
>like to replace these typically small and fast programs with
>a 10-20Meg mod_perl process. I can see where having a common
>modular authentication method would be useful, but what else would
>they have
> I don't think this is currently possible with the current Apache, but hear
> me out.
>
> Would it be possible to have a generic server, like Apache, but not just
> for HTTP - something that could also serve up NNTP connections, FTP
> connections, etc. It seems to me at first look this should be
According to Matt Sergeant:
> > >Would it be possible to have a generic server, like Apache, but not just
> > >for HTTP - something that could also serve up NNTP connections, FTP
> > >connections, etc. It seems to me at first look this should be possible.
> > >
> > >As I can see it there's a few
> I'll use POP3 as my example, although any other service (eg telnet, ssh,
FTP, SMTP) are equally valid.
>
> Having apache run on a non-http port, say port 110 (POP3), could be
handy. You could even have POP3 running elsewhere and use the POP3 module:
> o to proxy POP3 requests inside a firew
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, James G Smith wrote:
> Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I don't think this is currently possible with the current Apache, but hear
> >me out.
> >
> >Would it be possible to have a generic server, like Apache, but not just
> >for HTTP - something that could also serv
I'll use POP3 as my example, although any other service (eg telnet, ssh, FTP, SMTP)
are equally valid.
Having apache run on a non-http port, say port 110 (POP3), could be handy. You could
even have POP3 running elsewhere and use the POP3 module:
o to proxy POP3 requests inside a firewall, o
Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't think this is currently possible with the current Apache, but hear
>me out.
>
>Would it be possible to have a generic server, like Apache, but not just
>for HTTP - something that could also serve up NNTP connections, FTP
>connections, etc. It seems
Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Would it be possible to have a generic server, like Apache, but not just
>for HTTP - something that could also serve up NNTP connections, FTP
>connections, etc. It seems to me at first look this should be possible.
>
> Am I completely
>wacko or is this som
13 matches
Mail list logo
