On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Philippe M . Chiasson wrote:
With the forking MPM everything goes well...
Apparently, something broke with perl_clone ;-(
Guess I'll switch to forked MPM for now.
That's what I've done a few weeks ago, after Doug suggested to do so as
the threaded mpp wasn't stable
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a good way to figure out of something is a path
in the first place. Don't want to put `pwd` in front of every single argument
that doesn't start with '/'
So, this just attempts to clean MP_APXS.
--
Philippe M. Chiasson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Extropia's Resident
With these 2 top level MANIFEST files, make clean make distclean is a lot
less noisy.
--
Philippe M. Chiasson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Extropia's Resident System Guru
http://www.eXtropia.com/
When you rewrite a compiler from scratch, you sometimes fix
things you didn't know were broken.
Hi, the following patch tries to implement $r-no_cache() ;-)
The only warning I have, is that I had to modify FunctionTable.pm by hand.
I was able to run source_scan.pl and regenerate the tables myself, but the
resulting diff has nothing to do with my change, so here it goes...
--
Philippe M.
I've tried to use Apache-Test outside of modperl, but the server won't
find libmodperl.so, since it wasn't installed on my system on 'make
install'. Is this on purpose? I see ModPerl::MM::install is supposed to do
that, but it doesn't end up in Makefile. Or do I miss something?
I've manually
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, raptor wrote:
| * the issue with closures: Should we try to solve it or keep on
| explaining the problem? You input is welcome. If you think we should
| solve it please suggest how.
]- solve it i don't know how too :)
| * probably need to try to handle the
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 05:56:24PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Philippe M . Chiasson wrote:
though you have missed PATH, so I've added it.
Cut-n-Paste is evil ;-(
no prob, btw just in case you didn't know, commits to Apache-Test end up
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 05:41:12PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 04:56:30PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
It won't be too confusing for most of the people since they will just use
Apache::Registry or Apache::PerlRun as before,
| * __DATA__ and __END__ tokens: should read the file till these tokens
| are met and compile only the code that has been read so far.
]- I'm not aware of the whole process of how Apache::Registry works, but can
we just do this :
Apache::Registry
===
my $sub = $r-slurp_filename;
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 05:41:12PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 04:56:30PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
It won't be too confusing for most of the people since they will just use
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
That's what I've done a few weeks ago, after Doug suggested to do so as
the threaded mpp wasn't stable anymore.
'worker' is probably going to replace 'threaded' and seems pretty stable.
the bug philippe is seeing is clearly a bug in Perl (not the
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Philippe M . Chiasson wrote:
Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a good way to figure out of something is a path
in the first place. Don't want to put `pwd` in front of every single argument
that doesn't start with '/'
So, this just attempts to clean MP_APXS.
thanks. one
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Philippe M . Chiasson wrote:
With these 2 top level MANIFEST files, make clean make distclean is a lot
less noisy.
that MANIFEST contains a bunch of stuff that will never be distributed,
e.g. .cvsignore, Apache-Test/lib/Apache/.#TestConfig.pm.1.50, etc.
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
I was thinking that in 2.0 we could have two different configuration
containers, where PerlConf will replace the Perl from 1.x, and
introducing Perl to do something else.
i'd rather see:
Perl main
or
| use something like this :
|
| my $eval = join ( '', qq{
| package $package;
| use Apache qw(exit);
| $sub
| sub handler {
| $line
| $subname($r);
| };
| };
|
| just of my head... may have error.. or may don't work at all..
|
| what's $subname? you
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, raptor wrote:
| use something like this :
|
| my $eval = join ( '', qq{
| package $package;
| use Apache qw(exit);
| $sub
| sub handler {
| $line
| $subname($r);
| };
| };
|
| just of my head... may have error.. or
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
I've tried to use Apache-Test outside of modperl, but the server won't
find libmodperl.so, since it wasn't installed on my system on 'make
install'. Is this on purpose? I see ModPerl::MM::install is supposed to do
that, but it doesn't end up in
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
mpm), but i still have yet to update perl-current.
does perl-current pass all the tests for you Doug?
hard to tell since i am not using perl-current current.
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 01:19:01AM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
Who said that we have to use prototypes? Or if we don't the sub call won't
be optimized away?
Yup. Gotta have that () prototype, it's a bit of a (pragmatic) kludge.
If it were done today it would probably be via a :constant
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
but as you said we have this already, and it doesn't take the problem
away. You have to remember to declare the package when you just want to
run some code and switch back to Apache::ReadConfig when you want to do
the configuration. To me it makes
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
users don't read the documentation thoroughly, and even if they do,
chances are that the only thing they will rememember after reading the
docs is that Perl can run any code.
right, docs won't be read, so Perl should behave as it did in 1.x, code
is
There is an issue with r-print that isn't implemented yet. I guess I
cannot really move on with Registry, if print() is not available, unless I
do a temporary overload with write($buf, length $buf). Which means that we
have to implement PerlIO first. is that correct? If so how do we approach
this
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Barrie Slaymaker wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 01:19:01AM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
Who said that we have to use prototypes? Or if we don't the sub call won't
be optimized away?
Yup. Gotta have that () prototype, it's a bit of a (pragmatic) kludge.
If it were done
23 matches
Mail list logo
