Re: performance mongers: since when is using CGI.pm or Apache::Registry dishonorable?

2000-03-31 Thread Perrin Harkins
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Vivek Khera wrote: My question to all of you who use handlers directly, how do you manage all your handler mappings? I've seen it done where you add a Location mapping for each handler you use, which corresponds to each "program" you need. This, in my experience, tends

Re: performance mongers: since when is using CGI.pm or Apache::Registry dishonorable?

2000-03-29 Thread Matt Arnold
I came across poorly in my original message. Some of my wording (e.g. l33t, h@x0r, sux, etc.) was a poor attempt at trying to make the message entertaining. :-( Shrug I feel badly that my poor wording and/or extreme tone is getting in the way of the intent. I sincerely want to learn the

Re: performance mongers: since when is using CGI.pm or Apache::Registry dishonorable?

2000-03-29 Thread Ken Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Arnold) wrote: 1. An Apache handler doesn't mean CGI.pm *ISN'T* in use 2. Just because you don't use Apache::Registry doesn't mean you're not doing CGI emulation (*gasp*) 3. Using Apache::Registry doesn't necessarily mean CGI.pm is at use 4. Using CGI.pm is smart (aka

Re: performance mongers: since when is using CGI.pm or Apache::Registry dishonorable?

2000-03-29 Thread Ken Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Arnold) wrote: I came across poorly in my original message. Some of my wording (e.g. l33t, h@x0r, sux, etc.) was a poor attempt at trying to make the message entertaining. :-( Shrug I feel badly that my poor wording and/or extreme tone is getting in the way of the