On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:51:06AM -0400, Tod Harter wrote: > Its just not really possible in Apache 1.3 land. Apache 2 lets you chain the > output of different content handlers, but in 1.3 it requires special coding > in the handler itself to accomplish the same thing. Apache::Filter provides
Hmm, I'm very confused. I have lots of perl packages installed locally (I'm running Debian) and, AFAIK, none of them requires apache2, yet their examples all look very similar to what I'm trying. I'm also working with instructions from http://axkit.org/wiki/view/AxKit/ProviderHowTo which shows the ASP example I mentioned in my last email but, AFAIK, never requires apache2. > Apache::SSI isn't filter aware, and for that matter I don't know that AxKit > especially is either. From the previously-sited URL: The most exotic Provider and, quite surprisingly, the most simple: it works with Apache::Filter in order to get data from another PerlHandler. This requires other Handlers to be "Filter aware". By the time of this writing, this applies to: * Apache::Registry * Apache::SSI > Your best bet is to incorporate the logic you have in SSI now into your XSP > page I would think. Three problems with that: 1. My "logic" is a weblog. Yes, I could write my own, but I'd really rather not. 2. I can't get ESQL working on my server. 3. I'm more of a ruby coder, and don't really know much about perl. At the moment I'm using axkit to create content from relatively simple XML, as I hate duplicating effort and would rather tell my stylesheet how to render menus once . . . but I'd rather something like http://rublog.sf.net run my blog than what I manage to toss together in a relatively unfamiliar language. So, is the only way to solve this an upgrade to apache2? I don't mind doing it, just wanting to make sure before I get started. Or maybe axkit isn't the best solution for me? Is there a non-handler version of axkit, something to process my XML and produce static HTML? I kinda like editing my XML and serving it up directly, but I really need SSI and, if I must, I'll switch to a static solution, though I'd rather not.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
