Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> For some people, I presume dealing only with content handlers could be
> considered as "mod_perl experience". But mod_perl is so much more
> than the content phase. I would laugh at someone that said they "knew
> mod_perl", but couldn't tell me most of what's in Stas' document, for
> example, or had never written a PerlTransHandler or a PerlLogHandler.
> Or worse yet, had only used Apache::Registry!
>
> aside - Doug did too good of a job with Apache::Registry. So many
> people think that this is all mod_perl is and forget that
> Apache::Registry is just a stopgap while you are writing *real*
> handlers.
Many people make the distinction between Apache::Registry being for
mod_cgi compatible scripts, and "real" handlers taking full power of
the Apache API. The truth is that an Apache::Registry script can also
use the Apache API and completely disregard CGI compatibility.
When I write a new application, I often write content handlers as
registry scripts, because of the ease of use (no need to restart the
server when changed), then it's easy to wrap a "sub handler" around the
script to turn into a "real" handler.
--
Eric
