Re: [OT] Perl vs. PHP..... but where is mod_perl?
Ok, I've been watching the list for most of the day and watching "bashing" of PHP (which IMHO is idiotic and immature but again, JMHO). I have ALWAYS said, use the right tool for the right job. PHP has it's place. IMNSHO, it's place is web interfaces. It's GOOD at that. That's what it ORIGINALLY was designed for. Perl on the other hand was not ORIGINALLY designed for that (I REMEMBER. I used Perl 4 way back when. I REMEMBER (VAGUELY) the changes between the last 4.X and 5.0 and all the work I had to go through with it. :)). Perl was originally designed for text manipulation. IE PERL = Practical Extraction and Reporting Language. I started out with Perl and C. Then migrated to mod_perl about 2 years ago. At that time, PHP wasn't up to snuff IMHO for serious work. It is now. I now use both PHP AND PERL! IE I have 3 tools in my toolbox instead of 1. I use PHP for the front end web interface. I use mod_perl for the backend work. IE doing DB manipulations, text manips, sending out emails, etc. I also use straight perl scripts for the above when those actions need to happen via cron. And if I have to, I DO dip down into C for those times when I ABSOLUTELY need speed. I am VERY excited about mod_perl 2.0. I am looking forward to hopefully being able to use it with SOAP to create application servers that ARE EASY to work with/write. (Not like java IMHO :)). As far as security holes go, ALL languages have em. Just that more people use PHP than mod_perl. So it's security holes are more noticeable. ANYONE can write insecure apps in ANY language. -- Jeff Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Perl vs. PHP..... but where is mod_perl?
Ok, I've been watching the list for most of the day and watching "bashing" of PHP (which IMHO is idiotic and immature but again, JMHO). I have ALWAYS said, use the right tool for the right job. PHP has it's place. IMNSHO, it's place is web interfaces. It's GOOD at that. That's what it ORIGINALLY was designed for. Perl on the other hand was not ORIGINALLY designed for that (I REMEMBER. I used Perl 4 way back when. I REMEMBER (VAGUELY) the changes between the last 4.X and 5.0 and all the work I had to go through with it. :)). Perl was originally designed for text manipulation. IE PERL = Practical Extraction and Reporting Language. I started out with Perl and C. Then migrated to mod_perl about 2 years ago. At that time, PHP wasn't up to snuff IMHO for serious work. It is now. I now use both PHP AND PERL! IE I have 3 tools in my toolbox instead of 1. I use PHP for the front end web interface. I use mod_perl for the backend work. IE doing DB manipulations, text manips, sending out emails, etc. I also use straight perl scripts for the above when those actions need to happen via cron. And if I have to, I DO dip down into C for those times when I ABSOLUTELY need speed. I am VERY excited about mod_perl 2.0. I am looking forward to hopefully being able to use it with SOAP to create application servers that ARE EASY to work with/write. (Not like java IMHO :)). As far as security holes go, ALL languages have em. Just that more people use PHP than mod_perl. So it's security holes are more noticeable. ANYONE can write insecure apps in ANY language. -- Jeff Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Status of mod_perl 2.0
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 13:00, Stas Bekman wrote: > Jeff Stuart wrote: > > Question? What is the status of mod_perl 2.0? Also, is it working > > with/playing with Apache 2.0 at all? > > Tell me what's the status of apache 2.0 and I'll tell you the status of > mod_perl 2.0 :) > But seriously mod_perl 2.0 will be ready about the time apache 2.0 (i.e. > httpd-2.0) gets released. > > You can start playing with it already. I've successfully run my > singlesheaven.com code using mod_perl 2.0 a few months ago. And there > are many tests, so you can see what works and what not. Registry is > almost completed, a few thread-safety issues unresolved (e.g. chdir() in > the threaded env). > > If you plan on adding a testing platform for you product, make sure to > use the Apache::Test framework from 2.0 distro, which rocks! > > _ > Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker > http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com > http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/ Heh... status of Apache 2.0? WHO Knows? LOL
Status of mod_perl 2.0
Question? What is the status of mod_perl 2.0? Also, is it working with/playing with Apache 2.0 at all?
RE: [ANNOUNCE] HTML::StickyForms 0.01
Small rant here. :) Ok Peter, this looks interesting. WHAT does it do :) And please, to ALL module developers, when you post an announcement, even if it's an upgrade, please include a brief description of what the module does. :) Your module may JUST be the thing that I'm looking for but if there's no description of what it does I may not know that. :) -- Jeff (FurBall) WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board http://www.topniche.com/tech/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ANNOUNCE] HTML::StickyForms 0.01 I've finally released my sticky forms module on CPAN. There's currently no user documentation, but the interface should be fairly self explanatory. I'd appreciate some comments on the interface, and I'll start working on the docs for the next release. The uploaded file HTML-StickyForms-0.01.tar.gz has entered CPAN as file: $CPAN/authors/id/P/PM/PMH/HTML-StickyForms-0.01.tar.gz size: 2804 bytes md5: a52d669328840c0314309d3e615a540a No action is required on your part Request entered by: PMH (Peter Haworth) Request entered on: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:49:15 GMT Request completed: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:49:26 GMT Virtually Yours, Id: paused,v 1.68 1999/10/22 14:39:12 k Exp k -- Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] "To define recursion, we must first define recursion."
RE: Bugs 5.6.0 modperl use?
Ok, follow up question if I may. :) Are any of you using it with DBI and DBD::mysql? I see on the Mason list that people are using it with HTML::Mason so that module is safe. :) Looks like I'm gonna have to pull out that old Linux box and do a test on it. :) -- Jeff (FurBall) WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board http://www.topniche.com/tech/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jim Winstead [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:46 PM To: Modperl Mailing List Subject: Re: Bugs 5.6.0 modperl use? On May 25, Jeff Stuart wrote: > That's a GOOD question. Is there anyone at the moment using perl 5.6.0 in > production? Is it ready for production yet? We have one site in production with it, and a number of others going into production soon. We've been using is exclusively in our development environment for all new development since shortly after 5.6.0 came out. It has been rock-solid for us. (The basic setup is Apache 1.3.12, mod_perl 1.24, perl 5.6.0, and FreeBSD 3.4.) Jim
RE: Bugs 5.6.0 modperl use?
That's a GOOD question. Is there anyone at the moment using perl 5.6.0 in production? Is it ready for production yet? -- Jeff (FurBall) WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board http://www.topniche.com/tech/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jeffrey W. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 3:22 AM To: John M Vinopal Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bugs 5.6.0 modperl use? On Wed, 24 May 2000, John M Vinopal wrote: > > Apache 1.3.12 > modperl 1.24 > perl 5.6.0 > > CGI::Carp preloaded. > DBI preloaded. > > [Wed May 24 19:58:28 2000] [error] PerlRun: `Bizarre copy of HASH in aassign > at /usr5/perl/lib/5.6.0/Carp/Heavy.pm line 79. > > Prototype mismatch: sub Apache::ROOT::cgi_2dbin::adtaker::get_username::SQL_INTEGER vs () at /usr5/perl/lib/5.6.0/Exporter.pm line 57. > at /usr5/caps_prod/scripts/adtaker/get_username line 6 > > where SQL_INTEGER is imported via > use DBI qw(SQL_INTEGER); > > Anyone else seen these? Is anyone else using Perl 5.6.0? -jwb
RE: Most nonesense I've ever read about mod_perl
[...rest of message deleted...] > Every language has it use, the truly knowledgeable understand when to > use each language:) > Sam Amen to that!!! I think that this point and the point about writing GOOD algorithms are VERY important ones and I think that it's important that this be taught! I'm not sure if it's being taught now in school but in my day (GOD I sound old :)) (1987-1991) it wasn't. -- Jeff (FurBall) WebOverdrive Newbie Tech Board http://www.topniche.com/tech/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage.
I understand that. :) And that was something that I had to learn myself. :) It's a BAD thing when suddenly your httpd process takes up 100 MB. :) It's just that it sounded like Shane was saying that his httpds were starting OUT at 4 to 6 MB. That sounded a little unusual to me but then again, I've pared down my httpd config so that I don't have things in that I don't need. I'm just curious as to what he has in there. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Gunther Birznieks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. If you aren't careful with your programming, an apache HTTPD can always grow pretty quickly because Perl never releases the RAM it allocates previously. While it does that reference count garbage collection, that is internal to the RAM that was allocated. Let's say you need to sort a record set returned from a DBI call in an unusual perl-like way. If you do this "in memory", you need an array to hold the entire recordset in memory at once. If you do this, though, you will allocate the RAM for that one request that sorted the array and then the HTTPD will remain that size forever. Keeping the higher RAM allocation is good for performance if you have the RAM of course. So this is one of those design tradeoffs. And Perl was not really written to be a persistent language, so again, the tradeoff of operational speed seems to make sense versus persistent memory usage. Later, Gunther At 12:25 AM 4/18/00 -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote: >Shane, question for you. No offense intended here at all but what do you >have in your apache servers (other than mod_perl) that use 4 to 6 MB? I've >got one server that I'm working on that handles close 1 Mil hits per day >than runs WITH mod_perl that uses 4 to 6 MB. ;-) Without mod_perl, it >takes up around 500 to 800 KB. Now on another server my mod_perl server >uses about 13 Mb per but it's my devel machine so I've got a lot of stuff >loaded that I wouldn't have in a production server. > >-- >Jeff Stuart >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 6:46 PM >To: Perrin Harkins >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. > >Your apache processes would be the size of a stock >apache process, like 4-6M or so, and you would have 1 process that >would be 25MB or so that would have all your registry in it. __ Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Extropia - The Web Technology Company http://www.extropia.com/
RE: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage.
Shane, question for you. No offense intended here at all but what do you have in your apache servers (other than mod_perl) that use 4 to 6 MB? I've got one server that I'm working on that handles close 1 Mil hits per day than runs WITH mod_perl that uses 4 to 6 MB. ;-) Without mod_perl, it takes up around 500 to 800 KB. Now on another server my mod_perl server uses about 13 Mb per but it's my devel machine so I've got a lot of stuff loaded that I wouldn't have in a production server. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 6:46 PM To: Perrin Harkins Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Modperl/Apache deficiencies... Memory usage. Your apache processes would be the size of a stock apache process, like 4-6M or so, and you would have 1 process that would be 25MB or so that would have all your registry in it.
RE: [slightly OT] Problem with cookies
Now we are moving even further off topic but I've got to put my $0.02 in here. :) So what if older browsers might get stuck in an infinite loop. GOOD! That's what they deserve for not upgrading their browser. I've already got to develop DOWN to version 3.0 of the browsers. Now I have to worry about them not sending the host: header? H*LL no! What percentage of people are still browsing with browsers that don't send that header? According to the figures that I've seen no more than 2%. Oh no, I'm missing out on 2% of the market. :) I'd rather have 98% of the market and be able to use some important features rather than really dummy things down. This is all my personal opinion but at some point, we all as developers have to look at what we are doing and decide exactly how far back we are going to be compatible with browsers. My personal opinion is that I go back only 2 versions. If someone is still (again IMHO) stupid enough to continue to use an old version of a browser when they can download the latest versions, then whatever they get, they deserve. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jim Winstead [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Problem with cookies On Apr 07, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > I think this also suffers from placing the burden on the client. The > [R] there with an external rewrite means that the client will get > redirected if it doesn't tell you the right "Host:" header. But > HTTP/1.0 and older browsers (and some spiders) will NOT tell you that > header, so you get in an infinite loop. > > The solution is that you must allow for an unspoken "Host:" header to > fall through to a generic v-host. An important point is that although "Host:" wasn't required until HTTP/1.1, all of the common browsers have sent it with 1.0 requests for some time. This includes Netscape since version 2.0 and Internet Explorer since 3.0. Most browsers released since 1996 have sent it. I strongly suspect that all of the reputable search engine spiders send it as well. (That doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful and structure it so that you don't send Host-less requests into a redirect loop, I just want to make sure people know the situation isn't quite as dire as Randal may have made it sound. There are a large number of people relying on browsers sending the Host header to great effect.) Jim
RE: Perl 5.6 and mod_perl
Well, as I mentioned to someone else, I've been off the list for a while. It would have been nice if it there were something similar to what the Apache and Perl sites do. IE current version is X.XX. That way, one can know at a glance what the current stable version of the software is. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Vivek Khera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:14 AM To: Jeff Stuart Cc: Modperl Mailing List Subject: RE: Perl 5.6 and mod_perl >>>>> "JS" == Jeff Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JS> H*LL! I didn't even know that there WAS a mod_perl 1.22. :( Umm, JS> where was this announced? It would have been nice if it were JS> announced ON the web site! No mention anywhere of what version is JS> current that I could find. It was announced on the mailing list.
RE: Perl 5.6 and mod_perl
H*LL! I didn't even know that there WAS a mod_perl 1.22. :( Umm, where was this announced? It would have been nice if it were announced ON the web site! No mention anywhere of what version is current that I could find. Oh well. When I have the time, I guess I'll get to play with it and see what's up. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Rodney Broom (OE) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 1:47 AM To: Modperl Mailing List Subject: Re: Perl 5.6 and mod_perl - Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Has anyone tried to use mod_perl with perl 5.6 yet? Yes, all day. > If so, how did it go? U guess. Lots of weird little errors that I can't quite resolve. I can get Apache installed, but if I build with mod_perl, I can't get cgi or indexing to work. They just spit out segment fault errors. I've tried installing from the mod_perl build (1.21 and 1.22), and from CPAN shell. I've tried with Apache 1.3.9 and 1.3.12, same thing. If I build without mod_perl, Apache behaves just fine. I'm going to try building Apache with mod_perl as an extra module; if that doesn't work, I'm going to downgrade my Perl back to 5.005. If I'm just being silly and missing something, please hollar at me! Rodney
Perl 5.6 and mod_perl
Has anyone tried to use mod_perl with perl 5.6 yet? If so, how did it go? Oh, are we still at 1.21 for mod_perl? If so, when's the next release? I hear that there are some important memory leak fixes in there. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
