> Here's a snip from an email that I just receved from one of your
> co-workers, Alex Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in response to this same
> email:
>
> ---begin quote
>
> Why the comparison with mod_perl? This was part of the agreement we
> made with Sun in order to bundle our product with their web server. It
> was a strategic decision which step on mod_perl toes. Sun needed us to
> come up with a white paper to show how the new iPlanet web server was
> superior to the free Apache solution.
>
> ---end quote
hmm, guess we should take this as a complement!
> > > I understand that you guys even use core mod_perl code in your product,
> > > and yet you have to resort to FUD aginst mod_perl to sell it.
> >
> > VelociGen was written completely independently of mod_perl -
> > in fact mod_perl wasn't really around when we start writing the
> > code for the Netscape and IIS versions of VelociGen. Our Apache
> > port came out quite a bit later, and we didn't use any mod_perl
> > code for that. Our architecture is quite a bit different, so
> > not a lot of the code is applicable. We do use Apache::DBI, and
> > possibly one or two other Perl modules, which could be classified
> > as parts of mod_perl, but to say VelociGen uses core mod_perl code
> > is entirely inaccurate.
this isn't true. mod_perl was around for quite a while before velocigen.
in fact, I downloaded the first version to see what is was all about and
saw a copy-n-pasted file from perlembed.pod, the "Maintaining a persistent
interpreter" section. that code and documentation was written (by me),
based on mod_perl/Apache::Registry. I do agree that velocigen is quite
different from mod_perl, but let's be honest here, mod_perl certainly
helped to kick start your product.
