>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Sergeant
>To: Geoffrey Young
>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Sent: 7/16/01 6:32 PM
>Subject: Re: directive handlers in 2.0
>
>On 16 Jul 2001 14:46:45 -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>> hi doug...
>>
>> what's the game plan for directive handlers in 2.0. I was playing
>around
>> with them in 1.3 quite heavily last week and found myself wondering if
>it
>> wouldn't be cool to have a generic mechanism that you could slip into
>the
>> module record that would allow you to dispense with the Perl*Handler
>line
>> (if you wanted to). doesn't seem that hard if you plan for it, though
>it'd
>> be a kludge to get it into 1.3 it looks like.
>
>Actually it'd be fairly trivial. I've done AddHandler axkit for AxKit
>1.4_80, so I'm sure it could be done for any other directive handler
>based thingy.
well, I was kinda thinking along the lines of having command_table() write
out the module record using a generic subroutine to handle a given phase
plus the name of the handler (if you can pass arguments to the subroutines
there, I didn't investigate).
AxKit doesn't use ExtUtils though, right? at any rate, I didn't think it
would be too difficult, just banging it into the current architecture didn't
seem desirable. For the redesign, however, having generic stub routines for
each of the phases would be nifty...
>
>However you still need PerlModule AxKit, to load the .so (actually even
>that's slightly incorrect - I have it working so you can do LoadModule
>/path/to/AxKit.so).
well, a few weeks ago the behavior of directive handlers changed - I used to
be able to get them to work from just a use() in my startup.pl (but that
turned out to be a feature...
I guess my thought was to somehow leverage that, though, erroneous or not ;)
just my mind wandering, really. I wish I had more time to dedicate to 2.0
stuff...
--Geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
