Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>Listen 8555
>><VirtualHost _default_:8555>
>>
>
> you don't want to hard code the vhost port, see
> t/filter/TestFilter/input_msg.pm
ok, cool, I was mainly just trying to see whether it works, not to make
a real patch yet.
>
>> PerlOptions +Parent
>>
>
> and this is only available with ithreads+threaded mpm. we need to start
> the server with -DTHREADED_MPM or similar so this can be done
> conditionally.
Oh, yeah, I see now that it's only mentioned in the docs, not tests
available. What would be a nice to test to write. Will the require of
identical file names in different servers will be sufficient? (something
similar that I've posted with this hardcoded example)
>
>> PerlSwitches -Mlib=@serverroot@
>> PerlSwitches -Mblib=@serverroot@
>> PerlSwitches -Mlib=@serverroot@/lib/vh
>> PerlSwitches -Mlib=@serverroot@/hooks
>> PerlSwitches -Mlib=@serverroot@/response
>> PerlRequire conf/modperl_extra.pl
>> PerlModule PerlModuleTest
>>
>> <Location /TestModules::dump_env>
>> # PerlOptions +GlobalRequest
>> SetHandler perl-script
>> PerlResponseHandler TestModules::dump_env
>> </Location>
>>
>></VirtualHost>
>>
>>it is quite cumbersome :(
>>
>
> how about if you leave PerlSwitches as is so they are inherited, instead
> of PerlModule, add a PerlRequire:
> use lib 'path/for/vhost';
> use PerlModuleTest ();
what do you mean? That's the point of my question :) If I put +Parent I
don't have these inhereted, that's why I had to manually add each of these.
>
>> $buffer .= sprintf "%s\n", $_;
>>
>
> $buffer = "$_\n";
oops, a stupid copy-n-paste.
Anyway, this wasn't intended as a patch, yet, just something that works
for me, and I'm looking for a neater way to accomplish the test.
>>Now do we really need tests for Perl{Require|Module}? Can anything go
>>broken with these? As they are pure Perl and don't rely on any
>>environment.
>>
>
> it would be nice to have tests for them, but if its too much trouble for
> now, they can always be done later.
Since I've spent so much time on these already, I'd rather finish them.
I just wasn't sure whether we needed these.
>
>>Doug, you said that .htaccess should support these two directive as well,
>>but 'eval "expr"' (the way modperl_require is implemented) would be very
>>inefficient?
>>
>
> same as 1.x. PerlModule can be made more efficent using Perl_load_module.
>> todo ?
>>In any case, why do we want to support old features that don't make sense?
>>Or do they? Why would you want this feature in first place?
>>
>
> people have asked for it in the past, i think because they don't have
> write access to the main httpd.conf.
so we can probably can postpone this until somebody asks :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
