On 31 December 2010 10:56, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On 12/30/2010 3:25 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> On 31 December 2010 07:37, Brian McCallister <bri...@skife.org> wrote: >>> 2010/12/28 Igor Galić <i.ga...@brainsware.org>: >>>> Hey folks, >>>> >>>> I'm looking for some inspiration on how to make good use of >>>> mod_lua. Those familiar with its documentation, might find >>>> it a little bit lacking in this regard. >>> >>> My original aim (and what I still use mod_wombat for) is various small >>> modules I don't want to be bothered using C for, but which need to run >>> in a threaded MPM (making mod_python/mod_perl not viable options). >> >> Ignoring the fact that mod_python is now dead, there was never a >> restriction on using mod_python in a threaded MPM. > > Nor for properly deployed mod_perl, but either is far more heavyweight than > lua. And when you multiply interpreter contexts across worker threads, both > mod_perl and mod_python suffer huge bloat. I'm hoping we see much different > results with lua as the 'defacto' scripting engine.
The problem with mod_python was that it was poorly implemented. If you were start from scratch and do it over, it would be possible to make it much more light weight. The mod_wsgi module has shown this can be the case. Problem is that mod_python's failings have resulted in this overall perception that embedding Python inside of an Apache module is bad, when it doesn't need to be. The problems with mod_python weren't made any better through poor Python installations which didn't provide a shared Python library. End result was that library was linked statically and each process ended up with its own copy because of forced address relocations, thus contributing to the perception of memory bloat. Anyway, all too late now as the perception that Python as scripting language inside of Apache is bad is too prevalent and people continue to propagate this even though in reality they are really misinformed. :-( Graham
