On 12/11/07, Alfie John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are several problems when using 'backtick' here: > > 1) From my tests, be it a background or foreground command within > > backticks, your process has to wait for it to finish to continue. A > > simple Mason file can address this problem: > > > > <% rand() %> > > <%init> > > `sleep 20 &`; > > </%init> > > > > and see how long it takes to render your webpage. > > > > My point: if the external program takes some non-trivial time to > > finish, qx// and the likes are not the ways OP might need. > > > > 2) "backtick" is usually not used in a void context, this might just > > be a trivial Perl problem though. > > Interesting. I would have thought backticks would have returned > straight away since the process was backgrounded. system() however > does what you want: > > <%init> > print "before: " . time() . "<br />"; > system "sleep 200 &"; > print "after" . time() . "<br />"; > </%init> > > As you can see from the output, before and after are the same. If you > 'ps aux | grep sleep', you will see apache is resting.
I guess there is probably some security consideration not to use "system" that way. see perldoc perlsec.. I did some fast tests on that code from mod_perl webpage and it seems that the three "open" lines on STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR should become "close"(not "open"), at least in my current system (Mason+FastCGI) when I didnot use Apache::SubProcess. other lines are just fine.. Regards, Xicheng ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
