Geoffrey Young wrote:
Does mod_cgi still look for /nph-/ in script names?stas said so in a previous message, IIRC. I haven't looked.
modules/generators/mod_cgi.c: nph = !(strncmp(argv0, "nph-", 4));
what's the real goal with registry - to provide
100% compat with mod_cgi or to make mod_cgi-like scripts run as fast as they
can?
I think definitely the former. People who are really concerned about performance should not be using Registry.
I agree with Perrin on this.
the reason I suggested a subclass was so that the rare people who
require nph scripts have an outlet, while the vast majority of users are not
burdened with the overhead of checking for nph- scripts on every request.
A quick index() call to check for "nph-" is not going to matter in any real world scenario.
OK, so it seems that we agree on having the support only for /^nph-/ in registry. Now we just need to decide whether we
1) support this by default for any registry class, unless explicitly overriden in the subclass,
2) or introduce a new subclass just for that purpose.
The problem with (2) is that if you need mix and match nph- and not nph- scripts living in the same dir you will need to duplicate configs.
I'm fine going with (1) since we can always do (2) at a later stage.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
