On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 03:59, Stas Bekman wrote:
It's all yours now ;) I'll handle the GTopLimit, unless someone wants to handle it. May be we should merge the two and have an option to use GTopLimit if that's available and other approaches if it is not?
Sure, I can look at integrating them. Is it safe to do an "eval { require GTop; };" or could that mess things up?
No, that should work just find.
What would you consider properly handling these warnings?
We need to undefine all symbols and we don't at the moment.
Okay, that sounds reasonable. I get concerned when people want to suppress the "constant subroutine foo redefined" errors, since those are a more serious warning in my opinion.
It's only a problem if the constant defined in reloaded module A was used in module B that wasn't reloaded. But when you develop things you usually don't touch the constants. And I'd rather have a way to control that behavior and not have spurious warnings, that I know are harmless. That's why I added this new variable. But there were arguments for not doing it this way. We need to continue that thread I've posted the URLs for in my previous reply and decide how we proceed and close the issue.
__________________________________________________________________ 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
-- Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
