Philippe M. Chiasson wrote: [...]
So I guess it would be safe to use filetest 'access' in ModPerl-Registry (at least on Linux), but I would worry about:
1. Other Uni*es and Win32
What about them?
Well, from a glance at pp_sys.c, it seems that Perl will do the right
thing and use access() if it's available. Otherwise, using filetest
'access' seems like it would revert to the good old behaviour.
I just meant that it could be worth verifying that. Who knows, possibly some platforms _do_ provide access(), but it's behaviour is not identical to the basic filetest operators.
but as you suggest below chances are that it works just fine since it's a perl feature and it exists since 5.6.0 (enough time to discover problems, if it was used at all).
2. ACL support in APR/httpd
Are you talking about internal C calls? I don't think it should affect these.
I was asking if some of the apr file operations were using access() internally, so we could have leaveraged off of that instead of using Perl. But a quick grep exposed that apr seems to be using access(), but only in threadproc/unix/proc.c, not using it for the implementation of the apr_file_* stuff. So this issue is void (unless it's worth having access() support in APR)
and it probabaly should. but that's a different story.
3. When was the filetest.pm module introduced in the Perl core ?
5.6.0. I don't know whether Leon will want to backport it to 5.005_04.
Well, is that an issue preventing us from using it?
Not at all. We require 5.6.1+. I thought you were asking about mp1, where 5.005_03 is relevant.
4. performance. from the filetest manpage:
There may be a slight performance decrease in the filetests when "use filetest" is in effect, because in some systems the extended function- ality needs to be emulated.
is there a generic way to check whether the fs is acl-enabled?
No easy way I can find...
In which case, we should either enable it by default and have a config flag that will turn this feature off. Or better off leave the registry as is and write a subclass of Registry which will use the access(), so not to add a penalty to those users who have no .acls.
But, I'd be for using this if it doesn't causes false negatives for anybody. (A bit of a problem to write a portable test for it though)
if you get false negatives that's probably a bug in POSIX::access, no?
Yes, but who knows the status of access() on all platforms ?
I say it's a perl's problem ;)
IMHO, if it's there, we should think about using it. After all, I am pretty sure Perl already does a pretty good job at making sure it will work correctly on all platforms it runs on.
right, assuming that this feature was/is used at all.
__________________________________________________________________ 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]
