On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 09:32, Ged Haywood wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Garth Webb wrote:
> 
> > So what is a good alternative to Apache::Registry?  My impression was
> > that this is the thing to use unless you want the extra functionality of
> > something like HTML::Mason.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the question.  Apache::Registry offers a
> means to simulate a CGI environment, so that many existing CGI scripts
> can run unmodified (or with very little modification) under mod_perl,
> giving a substantial performance boost in most cases.  Toolkits like
> HTML::Mason offer very rich sets of features well beyond the scope of
> Apache::Registry and shouldn't really be compared with it.

(Ged, Sorry for the off-list response)

My question was a little confusing.  My comparison between
Apache::Registry and HTML::Mason had to do with both assuming the job of
PerlHandler.  That is, with either one I don't have to make each script
I write into a Perl module and then have separate <Location> entries
mapping each module to a location in my httpd.conf.  With both I can
give a path to my script from the document root and they will take care
of accepting the request and calling my script.

I have around 100 scripts right now, and while I could convert them all
to packages and then set up 100 entries for each in the httpd.conf file,
it seems like that would create a system that is very difficult to
maintain.  For instance, right now I can add a new script and it will be
available to the world whereas with the handler method I would need to
restart Apache so that it can read in the new conf.

I could write a package that would handle all the requests and then call
the appropriate scripts for me, but then I've reinvented
Apache::Registry.

So my question is, what do you think is the better alternative to
Apache::Registry?  If its bad enough that someone like me might have
written a replacement, where is it?  Do people really have conf files
with 100's of <Location> directives?  It seems to me that most people
these days are using toolkits which take care of this URL location to
script location automatically, (thus my original question).

> >  I read:
> > 
> > http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/guide/performance.html#Apache__Registry_PerlHandler_vs__Custom_PerlHandler
> > 
> > which shows Apache::Registry is slightly slower (but not by much) than
> > writing a custom Handler.  In my case I have 100's of scripts I'd have
> > to write custom handlers for which seems like a maintenance nightmare. 
> 
> The advice I gave about handlers was to someone starting from scratch
> for whom performance clearly isn't the issue.  I wouldn't have given
> that advice to someone who wants to run hundreds of existing CGI
> scripts with minimal maintenance issues.  I'd probably say now could
> be a good time to look at the 'strict' pragma and the '-w' switch.
> 
> > Has someone reinvented Apache::Registry in a way that isn't a horrible hack?
> 
> Not as far as I'm aware. :)
> 
> Ged.
-- 

 |- Garth Webb       -|
 |- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -|

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to