should be discussed here, but feel free to invite modperl@
users to join
the discussion. i'm sure there are more interested here than geoff
already though.
and I'm not _that_ interested
;)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
I think Doug has planned to have it as a standalone project, which is fine
with me, but it's absolutely a must to have it in the core distribution,
rather than in Bundle. Most of the people use mod_perl because
Apache::Registry and PerlRun, so having
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
I wonder how many people actually take advantage of NameWithVirtualHost=1.
seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames) is a much cleaner solution
that invites less problems/confusion.
using filenames makes for long packages names == lengthy
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
I wonder how many people actually take advantage of NameWithVirtualHost=1.
seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames) is a much cleaner solution
that invites less problems/confusion.
using
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
what's the replacement of NameWithVirtualHost? Obviously we need something
to distinguish between vhs.
well, if possible we should distinguish between the uri and requested
resource instead. in otherwords, we have the:
r-uri = r-filename translation,
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
Still can you please share your thoughts about the new Apache::Registry.
How would you like it to be? Thanks.
my thoughts are already in Apache::{PerlRun,RegistryNG,PerlRunXS}, etc. :)
i'd rather stand
I wonder how many people actually take advantage of
NameWithVirtualHost=1. seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames)
is a much cleaner solution that invites less problems/confusion.
No matter how many are using it has to be there. I guess the default one
can be done using inodes and not
