Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
OK, the post_config story is now resolved, we can get back to this
discussion.
Larry Leszczynski wrote:
Hi Stas -
As a followup to the discussed issue, we need to redefine the
concept of:
"put those things in startup.pl"
we now need to say:
"put those things in post_config phase handler"
[...]
So there is a possibility to introduce a new directive: PerlStartupFile
(feel free to suggest a better name) which will be:
PerlStartupFile "somefile.pl"
[...]
after discussing this with gozer on irc we aren't sure this is a good
idea, as for most people using the old startup.pl concept will still
work.
Leaving things as-is sounds like it might be asking for trouble, e.g.
people not aware of the implications between config and post-config, or
people still using "PerlRequire startup.pl" from their mp1 setup and it
works ok by coincidence, and suddenly stops working (or fails in
mysterious ways) when they add something that unknowingly breaks the
rules
about config vs. post-config phases.
Everything will work just the same either way, it's just that STDERR
is closed during the config phase's 2nd pass (when Apache restarts
itself).
And also, most people will not be doing things that are 'forbidden' in
there,
like running different code on each pass, so it should be harmless in most
cases.
Maybe it would also help to introduce an alias for PerlRequire called
something like PerlConfigFile, to make it more obvious it should only be
used to modify config, and recommend that instead of using "PerlRequire
startup.pl" people should do:
PerlConfigFile "some-file.pl"
PerlStartupFile "some-other-file.pl"
Or maybe since there is already PerlPostConfigHandler, parallel that and
use the name PerlPostConfigFile instead of PerlStartupFile?:
PerlConfigFile "some-file.pl"
PerlPostConfigFile "some-other-file.pl"
I like the consistency in this case.
(Don't know about that, maybe PerlStartupFile seems more intuitive about
what you'd use it for...)
Yup, those are the two ideas philippe and I have discussed, we are
just not sure it's a very good idea to introduce a new directive which
does the same thing as PerlRequire. But in fact I like the idea. Since
PerlRequire normally is not run during the config phase (unless
something forces perl startup early, e.g. perlloadmodule or <perl>
section). So currently:
PerlRequire "startup.pl"
doesn't necessarily runs during the config phase.
by making PerlConfigFile forcing perl startup early, it'll make more
sense, since it'll ensure to be run during the config phase.
Yes. less magic and more consistency. I think it does make sense.
and then of course PerlPostConfigFile which does the wrapping to push
the handler is a nice sugar syntax.
So I'm +1 for:
PerlConfigFile "some-file.pl"
PerlPostConfigFile "some-other-file.pl"
I think it's a good choice as well, but what about PerlRequire itself ?
Just an
alias to PerlConfigFile ?
PerlRequire stays where it is.
PerlConfigFile = StartPerl + PerlRequire (ensures to be run at config phase)
Same as PerlLoadModule vs. PerlModule.
--
__________________________________________________________________
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]
