On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My 2 cents is that mod_perl lacks an established application server/tookits
so for a serious web application, programmers have to rely mostly on the original
API to get the full benifit. While there sevearl great application tools like
mason, ePerl,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Todd Cranston-Cuebas wrote:
programmer. However, I do recruit a lot of perl programmers! What isn't
really being discussed is that fact that new programmers often work with
whatever technology allows them to cheaply get sites up and running on the
web. Do a Yahoo search on
Dave Rolsky wrote:
Uh, both Mason and TT have large active communities, lots of docs, books
about them, code samples.
I agree. There isn't much sense in writing a new toolkit from scratch
when you look at the stuff on this page:
http://perl.apache.org/products/app-server.html
Many of these have
I just read through this entire thread and picked an entry point for my
response kind of randomly, but I do want to address this issue, because
I also feel that it's very important.
I've been coding Perl since '95...blah, blah..blah. MP and other
Perl-related server-resident technologies have
But the Greatest Gift of All: An MP Solutions Map
==
I think that perhaps the single resource with the greatest impact that
we can provide to new users is a map of the available
technologies/approaches to providing solutions using MP. There
--- Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, as I understand it, PHP has all the same problems. There
is a safe mode, but enabling it tends to break things, so many
ISPs turn it off. Even with it on, I believe you can still redefine
core functions at will, not to mention just coding
Stas (or anybody else)
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less
mod_perl talks and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC) conferences.
Do you know how many talks / tutorials were submitted ?
Asking the other way round: Was it a problem of to less submissions or that
the
Gerald Richter wrote:
Stas (or anybody else)
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less
mod_perl talks and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC) conferences.
Do you know how many talks / tutorials were submitted ?
I don't have that information. if you remember in the previous years
--- Jie Gao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears easy to beginners, but as server admin, I find it a
nightmare for beginners to play with it without knowing what's
involved.
So the marketing strategy for mod_perl should be very different.
One can do so much more with mod_perl.
I don't think
I am not responding solely to your post here, but also to several other
points I saw brought up.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 18:47, Chris Shiflett wrote:
well, I think it really depends on what you want to accomplish. all
Hi,
In Advanced Perl Programming, under the heading the case for scripting. That is
something that I think would fit in very well in a talk. Lots of people know there are
an endless number of very cool impressive things you can do with Perl and mod_perl.
The amazing one liners, the tricks that
--- gunther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.mod_perl.com (doesn't exist)
www.mod_perl.org (doesn't exist)
A small point, and I would have to double-check, but I don't believe
underscores are allowed in domain names. You'd want to replace those with
hyphens.
A Google search for mod_perl gives me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only place where the C API overrides the Perl API in mp1, IMHO, is
for the configuration process. To do somehow a complicated configuration in
Perl seems even more difficult than in C. Well, maybe I should sit down
and read those chapters in the 3 books again :-)
In
Eric wrote:
In Advanced Perl Programming, under the heading the case for
scripting. That is something that I think would fit in very well in a
talk. Lots of people know there are an endless number of very cool
impressive things you can do with Perl and mod_perl. The amazing one
liners, the
Stefan Loones wrote:
[...]
Then about the documentation:
[...]
Stefan and a few other folks have voiced a few concers about docs. I'll try to
address those here:
1) docs need to be improved and reorganized.
Well, docs need to be written. It's easy to suggest things, one needs to
actually write
Eric wrote:
I think the other aspect of
mod_perl that I would want to push very hard is the deep hooks into
Apache. Just as a small example of something I have not yet figured out,
but am pretty sure I can find a way with mod_perl, I want to capture
STDERR and redirect it to an in memory
--- Jie Gao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also likes Stef's idea about adding user comments for doc. hope it can happen.
hmm, does mod_perl still have problem running for virtual hosts? people choose
php over cgi
for
obvious reason.
Problem with virtual hosts? Like what?
here
Chris Shiflett wrote:
--- gunther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.mod_perl.com (doesn't exist)
www.mod_perl.org (doesn't exist)
A small point, and I would have to double-check, but I don't believe
underscores are allowed in domain names. You'd want to replace those with
Hi,
FWIW IMO Speed, Flexibility, comprehension,
Google_sex_appeal:) I find modperl cool.
It would be useful IMO to promote by articles/board
that contained everything from simple to complex
usages for modperl catagorized by stage(s) used.
(That way people can hit the ground
One key point that the PR needs to address is the future of a programming toolkit.
mod_perl allows people to write perfect MVC applications while other scripting
toolkits
like php or asp are hard in seperating algorithm from html presentation.
Sorry if I am misleading, but if to make a big PR,
folks, there is no need to quote 22K of text you don't quite use anyway :(
Please quote only parts of the text you reply to, or don't quote at all.
Thanks.
--
__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
folks, there is no need to quote 22K of text you don't quite use anyway :(
Please quote only parts of the text you reply to, or don't quote at all.
Thanks.
--
__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl
gunther [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-09 16:42
But if some clients do support underscore, since mod_perl is frequently
written with an underscore, may as well get that domain name too in case
You can NOT buy from Registrars domain names with underscores in
them.
These ``domain names'' do not
At 9:51 AM -0700 6/9/04, Todd Cranston-Cuebas wrote:
lot, but you get the point. Until people can pick a cheap, reliable, and
well-known hosting service where mod_perl is one of the main options, you
But it has to be more than mod_perl. mod_perl is far too low-level.
Even Embperl or Mason
Hi,
Well at the very least you sold a book :)
I have to admit, when I looked at that book the first time, I thought I pretty much
knew everything in it, what BS that was! :)
I did solve my problem on my own somewhat sloppy way, but the example you gave was
very interesting too and I hope to
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less mod_perl
talks and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC) conferences. And that's a
bad trend. It certainly affects the number of mod_perl job offers,
since those who decide which technology to
On Jun 8 Stas Bekman wrote:
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less
mod_perl talks and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC) conferences. And
that's a bad trend.
Maybe a BOF meeting?
Like all good list posters, I researched
It looks like this story made it to the use.perl.org front page. That's a
goodness :)
Jim Martinez wrote:
On Jun 8 Stas Bekman wrote:
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less
mod_perl talks and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC)
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:19:41 -0700
Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... [ big snip ]
I guess it's still important to make an effort to have mod_perl appear
more in the media (e.g. articles, announcements), conferences, etc.
But your viewpoint is interesting. It'd be really nice to have
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:32, Jim Martinez wrote:
Yet, being an optimist, I created a mod perl entry at the yapc kwiki.
Kwiki BOF link:
http://yapc.kwiki.org/index.cgi?BOF
Thanks! It looks like it should be on the front page with the other
BOFs though. Maybe we could do it Thursday night
That would rock. Count me in. I'd also be willing to take some of my
free time and help out where possible, whether it be building some
example sites, or whatever. Would be nice to have others scrutinize my
style a bit, too.
It might also be nice to have some sort of well organized
Kreimendahl, Chad J wrote:
That would rock. Count me in. I'd also be willing to take some of my
free time and help out where possible, whether it be building some
example sites, or whatever. Would be nice to have others scrutinize my
style a bit, too.
It might also be nice to have some sort
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:55:56AM -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
I think all of these are important and #4 especially for people new
to programming or just new to mod_perl. If we had 4 or 5 small
working applications online that had detailed commentary about
specific mod_perl info,
On Jun 8 Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:32, Jim Martinez wrote:
Yet, being an optimist, I created a mod perl entry at the yapc kwiki.
Kwiki BOF link:
http://yapc.kwiki.org/index.cgi?BOF
Thanks! It looks like it should be on the front page with the other
BOFs though.
Perrin Harkins a écrit :
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:55, Frank Wiles wrote:
I agree mod_perl needs more PR. I think we've got a great community
of people to help on the mailing list, tons of great documentation,
but lack in several areas:
1) PR announcements in general (When is the last time
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:55, Frank Wiles wrote:
I agree mod_perl needs more PR. I think we've got a great community
of people to help on the mailing list, tons of great documentation,
but lack in several areas:
1) PR announcements in general (When is the last time you
Arnaud Blancher wrote:
[...]
i dont understand why the apache fondation dont talk more about perl
(whitch is faster) but always of java/xml.
Because someone needs to do the talk. Java XML developers have a pretty big
development team, so they have resources/tuits to do that kind of things. The
Stas == Stas Bekman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stas Because someone needs to do the talk. Java XML developers have a
Stas pretty big development team, so they have resources/tuits to do that
Stas kind of things. The mod_perl dev team is so much smaller and hardly
Stas manages to do the
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 12:27, Arnaud Blancher wrote:
i dont understand why the apache fondation dont talk more about perl
(whitch is faster) but always of java/xml.
Where do you see the Java/XML stuff getting talked about? I mostly see
it in Java magazines or websites, which is to be expected:
Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 12:27, Arnaud Blancher wrote:
i dont understand why the apache fondation dont talk more about perl
(whitch is faster) but always of java/xml.
If people can keep track of a few places where they would like to see
more Perl coverage,
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 10:55, Frank Wiles wrote:
I agree mod_perl needs more PR. I think we've got a great community
of people to help on the mailing list, tons of great documentation,
but lack in several areas:
1) PR announcements in general (When
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 12:37, Stas Bekman wrote:
In particular, I would say it's a mistake to think that mod_perl
specifically needs PR. There is no important difference between
promoting mod_perl and promoting Perl in general. That's why I think
this sort of thing should be pursued
Stefan Loones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/08 2:50 pm
I also find it a very interesting option when people can give
comments within the documentation on a per subject basis (like you
can
do at http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.usort.php and at
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/JOIN.html).
Good points.
Also, I think we need some work on the FUTURE of mod_perl. New users look for tools
which will let them keep on the bandwagon for the next 5 years. This is XML.
For those php, java or .NET users, if one day we tell people that all those
interesting
tools on Apache/Java projects
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 15:50, Stefan Loones wrote:
I looked at php. Why ? Because you hear about it, and see it
everywhere (= PR !).
Where? Where do you see it that you are not seeing Perl represented?
Keep track, and then we'll have some targets to pursue for placing
articles.
In my opinion
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:43:23 -0400
Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 15:50, Stefan Loones wrote:
I looked at php. Why ? Because you hear about it, and see it
everywhere (= PR !).
Where? Where do you see it that you are not seeing Perl represented?
Keep
Accidentally only sent this to Perrin.
-
Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://frank.wiles.org
-
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:53:48 -0500
From: Frank Wiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Perrin Harkins
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 05:43:23PM -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
With this background, I found the documentation on mod_perl 2
difficult for a new user.
As you say, this is partly because you chose to start with
Apache/mod_perl 2. The documentation for mod_perl 1 is more
approachable
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I programmed a mod_perl based BBS system for a site. It got
almost 200,000 (!) unique IP hits every day with the dual set-up
(plain apache + mod_perl). This might be an example where others
such as php and java servlet can't compete. Right?
Not in my opinion.
--- Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you notice, no one talks about mod_php. Instead they talk about
PHP.
Well, there are a few reasons for that, and none of them have to do with
PR really.
First, PHP was not created as a general-purpose scripting language. There
is now a
It depends how to define programming language. It seems more properly
a comparison between php and Mason because mod_perl itself is the Apache
API in Perl language. For newbies, this API is indeed hard to program with.
My 2 cents is that mod_perl lacks an established application server/tookits
--- Frank Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the choice is for MP1 then. But this means installing Apache 1.3,
not benefitting from new features and the guarantee that one is
using ancient technique.
Well, for what it's worth, the situation is much the same in the PHP camp.
We still recommend
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Chris Shiflett wrote:
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Shiflett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Modperl List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mod_perl presence at OSCON (and other CONs) is at danger
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I programmed a mod_perl based BBS system for a site. It got
almost 200,000 (!) unique IP hits every day with the dual set-up
(plain apache + mod_perl). This might be an example where others
such as php and java servlet can't compete. Right?
Not in my
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 18:47, Chris Shiflett wrote:
Another reason for the naming habits is that PHP runs on more Web servers
than Apache, and only the Apache SAPI is called mod_php.
This is exactly the same situation as Perl. Perl has SAPI support on
IIS through PerlEx, lots more through
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Occasionally, I thought we might start up with a new application server that
has features like these: 1) MVC model; 2) XHTML templates; 3) backend
programming based on XML (e.g. parsing parameters like STRUTS), so other
java, .NET applications can be translated as easy
--- Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the same situation as Perl. Perl has SAPI support
on IIS through PerlEx, lots more through FastCGI, and runs
persistently with any server that supports CGI via PersistentPerl.
(AFAIK, PHP has no equivalent for that.)
That's correct,
--- Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while I realize I'm in the minority with this view (and perrin and
I have had this discussion/friendly disagreement before :) what _I_
like about mod_perl cannot be satisfied by anything other than
mod_perl - I like the Apache API...
Good point, and
Chris == Chris Shiflett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Well, surely there are plenty of people fully utilizing mod_perl for all
Chris it's worth. Are there things you can speak/write about more to illustrate
Chris the benefit of the Apache API? Input/output filters seem like one such
Chris
Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..
while I realize I'm in the minority with this view (and perrin and I have
had this discussion/friendly disagreement before :) what _I_ like about
mod_perl cannot be satisfied by anything other than mod_perl - I like the
Apache API, and I would
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Geoffrey Young wrote:
well, I think it really depends on what you want to accomplish. all the
above really seems like just a perl versus php (or $web_language) debate:
both run on a number of different server platforms, have strong followings,
and are proven scalable and
Chris :
I personally think mod_perl's strengths are in its rich feature set. Only
after watching a few of Geoff's talks (and one of Stas's) did I realize
exactly what PHP developers are missing. They speak about things like
ties, closures, and globs. Plus, PHP is limited to the content
Stas Bekman wrote:
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less mod_perl
talks and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC) conferences. And that's a bad
trend. It certainly affects the number of mod_perl job offers, since
those who decide which technology to choose for their next
It so appears that in the last few years we get less and less mod_perl talks
and tutorials at the big (non-YAPC) conferences. And that's a bad trend. It
certainly affects the number of mod_perl job offers, since those who decide
which technology to choose for their next project go to those big
64 matches
Mail list logo
