> On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 23:25 +0000, Tom Gazzini wrote: > > The reason I say this is that, when I first started researching > mod_perl, > > about 1.5 short years ago, search engines often led me to very helpful > > articles on how to install/configure mod_perl, but these were frequently > > emblazoned with the alarming qualifier "DO NOT USE MOD_PERL 2 IN A > > PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT" or words to that effect. > > Those were necessary warnings, in my opinion, since Red Hat was shipping > alpha code as their only mod_perl offering. > > They also all say that it's not released yet, so all we have to do is > make sure people hear that it's released.
Yes that's right. You have to make sure they hear it. > > IMHO, these qualifiers play a fairly significant role in the decline in > > mod_perl usage stats we've been seeing in the last few months. > > I don't really think so. PHP has all the same qualifiers about use with > Apache 2. I know very little about what the PHP crowd do, or how PHP know-how is propagated. I was really talking from personal experience. That of recently trying to convince a team of developers at work (who have been raised mostly on Microsoft tools) that a particularly large and high profile project would be better and more quickly accomplished using apache and mod_perl. It didn't take them long to do a google search and come up with the "Do not use mod_perl in production" articles (as these seem to come somewhere the top of the search listings if you start researching Mason or Embperl with mod_perl). This then became ammo against mod_perl. Mod_perl lost the battle. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
