RE: Apache::Request for CGI? (was: Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy)
Hi Joe -- > +1. Scripting _inside_ the server opens up possibilities that > are unimaginable to folks who are content confining themselves > to the lowest common denominator (CGI). Perhaps you could bullet-point a few of these possibilities for those of us who are confined by our lack of imagination? TTYL, -Jesse- -- Jesse Erlbaum The Erlbaum Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 212-684-6161 Fax: 212-684-6226
Apache::Request for CGI? (was: Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy)
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > I'm late to the party, but here's an old post of mine that sums up my > opinion: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modperl&m=95440118003848&w=2 +1. Scripting _inside_ the server opens up possibilities that are unimaginable to folks who are content confining themselves to the lowest common denominator (CGI). That said, apreq-dev is looking for someone to adopt and develop the CGI port of libapreq-2/Apache::Request. I'm shooting for a developer release of libapreq-2 before OSCON, and it'd be _really_ cool if we had a functional CGI port available. -- Joe Schaefer
Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 12:18, Peter B. Ensch wrote: > It's been suggested to me that content generating > apps should be done under A::R, whereas logging, > authentication Etc. should be implemented as > mod_perl handlers. > > What is the opinion of the group? I'm late to the party, but here's an old post of mine that sums up my opinion: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modperl&m=95440118003848&w=2 - Perrin
RE: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy
>All new code should use handlers. I wouldn't necessarily agree, A::R has a few advantages. As some have already mentioned portability is one of them, and this includes running the same scripts command line, not just under legacy CGI systems. Perhaps more important is the speed of development, A::R just ends up being much faster than handlers, not even sure why. The performance advantage of handlers is pretty much negligible for most people and most applications. Sure you can do many things with handlers you can't do with A::R, but you would actually want to use those features very rarely, and nothing prevents you from dropping and actual handler in the same app when you need it. Dmitri
Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy
Hi Ken, On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Ken Y. Clark wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Ged Haywood wrote: > > > All new code should use handlers. > > I wouldn't be so strict about such definitions. I didn't say "must". :) > Or am I missing something? You will get better performance from handlers and you can do more with them. I wouldn't deliberately build unnecessary limitations into a new system if I had any choice in the matter. > Whatever works for you, I say. But mayhap I'm too permissive. Well I'm probably not permissive enough... :) 73, Ged.
Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Ged Haywood wrote: > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:25:23 +0100 (BST) > From: Ged Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Peter B. Ensch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy > > Hi there, > > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Peter B. Ensch wrote: > > > I'm beginning to develop apps under mod_perl. I'm > > curious as to how people decide between coding for > > Apache::Registry vs. mod_perl handlers. > > Use Apache::Registry only if you have to in order to get legacy CGI > scripts working. > > > It's been suggested to me that content generating > > apps should be done under A::R, whereas logging, > > authentication Etc. should be implemented as > > mod_perl handlers. > > All new code should use handlers. > > 73, > Ged. I wouldn't be so strict about such definitions. If you're only looking to generate content, then I don't see a problem with writing "standard" CGI scripts and running them under A::R. If you stick with "strict" and "warnings" and follow the gotchas listed in The Guide[1], you should be fine. If you also choose to code carefully, you can use the same script under mod_perl or not without changing anything (if that's important to you). Or am I missing something? At CSHL, all our Apache servers are compiled with mod_perl, but Lincoln still has us write most everything as CGI scripts. It's easy and works just fine for us. Also saves having to add directives to httpd.conf everytime you want to add a new script. Whatever works for you, I say. But mayhap I'm too permissive. ky [1]-http://perl.apache.org/guide
Re: A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy
Hi there, On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Peter B. Ensch wrote: > I'm beginning to develop apps under mod_perl. I'm > curious as to how people decide between coding for > Apache::Registry vs. mod_perl handlers. Use Apache::Registry only if you have to in order to get legacy CGI scripts working. > It's been suggested to me that content generating > apps should be done under A::R, whereas logging, > authentication Etc. should be implemented as > mod_perl handlers. All new code should use handlers. 73, Ged.
A::Registry vs. mod_perl handler philosophy
I'm beginning to develop apps under mod_perl. I'm curious as to how people decide between coding for Apache::Registry vs. mod_perl handlers. It's been suggested to me that content generating apps should be done under A::R, whereas logging, authentication Etc. should be implemented as mod_perl handlers. What is the opinion of the group? Regards, P -- ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Peter Ensch, [EMAIL PROTECTED] A-1140 (214) 480 2333 ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
