Re: Microperl
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Bill Moseley wrote: This is probably more of a Friday topic: Simon Cozens discusses "Microperl" in the current The Perl Journal. I don't build mod_rewrite into a mod_perl Apache as I like rewriting with mod_perl much better. But it doesn't make much sense to go that route for a light-weight front-end to heavy mod_perl backend servers, of course. I don't have any experience embedding perl in things like Apache other that typing "perl Makefile.PL make", but Simon's article did make me wonder. So I'm curious from you that understand this stuff better: Could a microperl/miniperl be embedded in Apache and end up with a reasonably light-weight perl enabled Apache? I understand you would not have Dynaloader support, but it might be nice for simple rewriting. it would not make much difference. the major source of bloat is Perl's bytecode/data structures, microperl does not make these any smaller. still might be worth looking into as an option, but somebody would need to tweak Makefile.micro to build a libmicroperl.a to link against. at the moment it only builds the microperl program.
Re: Microperl
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Robin Berjon wrote: At 00:12 16/11/2000 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: Nothing against mod_rewrite -- I was just wondering if a small perl could be embedded with out bloating the server too much. I don't think 'small' and 'perl' belong in the same sentence... I know what you mean but this is MicroPerl, not Perl. I don't know how much difference it makes, but it's certainly smaller. I'm afraid I can't help with embedding it though. I like the idea, not just for rewrites (I'm quite happy with mod_rewrite most of the time) but for all the conf stuff. It doesn't have dynaloader, but you could still do things like read conf from a flat file db or that sort of thing. It doesn't have anything that isn't *entirely* portable and *entirely* guaranteeable, which means a large number of syscalls, and anything which isn't in KR2. MBM -- Science is built up of facts, as a house with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. -- Poincare
Re: Microperl
At 18:35 16/11/2000 +0100, Fabrice Scemama wrote: ok so what about miniperl, which is used when building perl? I think using whichever of the small perls that are used during build (or were thought about to use during build) could potentially be interesting. -- robin b. As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
Re: Microperl
At 18:35 16/11/2000 +0100, Fabrice Scemama wrote: ok so what about miniperl, which is used when building perl? Is your question, what about embedding miniperl rather than microperl ? I don't know enough about the diffs to decide, and anyway I couldn't do the job myself. I was just supporting bill's idea as one that I think could be interesting, should anyone have tuits to spare on testing this out :) -- robin b. Don't panic.
Re: Microperl
I don't think another choice could hurt and potentially is cool. However, at the same time... I do know that when I go to the Microsoft World I get really annoyed at the fact that VBScript syntax means different things to different apps including IIS. And that it's so different from VB, I can't believe they have the nerve to say VB Programmers will pick up VBScript quickly. Anyway, viva la choice. If you want to try it, go ahead. There are obviously people who really want to use it. In fact, I suspect mod_backhand would really like it so that Apache::Backhand could run in a smaller footprint for writing candidacy functions (just don't run them in Florida -- sorry that was bad, I couldn't resist). Later, Gunther At 10:49 PM 11/16/00 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote: At 18:35 16/11/2000 +0100, Fabrice Scemama wrote: ok so what about miniperl, which is used when building perl? Is your question, what about embedding miniperl rather than microperl ? I don't know enough about the diffs to decide, and anyway I couldn't do the job myself. I was just supporting bill's idea as one that I think could be interesting, should anyone have tuits to spare on testing this out :) -- robin b. Don't panic. __ Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) eXtropia - The Web Technology Company http://www.extropia.com/
Re: Microperl
At 08:53 17/11/2000 +0800, Gunther Birznieks wrote: However, at the same time... I do know that when I go to the Microsoft World I get really annoyed at the fact that VBScript syntax means different things to different apps including IIS. And that it's so different from VB, I can't believe they have the nerve to say VB Programmers will pick up VBScript quickly. I don't think this is really an issue. The small Perls have the same syntax, the main difference is that some things are missing. It should be fairly easy then to come up with a list of what one can't do. so that Apache::Backhand could run in a smaller footprint for writing candidacy functions (just don't run them in Florida -- sorry that was bad, I couldn't resist). Lol :) -- robin b. "What I like about deadlines is the lovely whooshing sound they make as they rush past." --Douglas Adams
Microperl
This is probably more of a Friday topic: Simon Cozens discusses "Microperl" in the current The Perl Journal. I don't build mod_rewrite into a mod_perl Apache as I like rewriting with mod_perl much better. But it doesn't make much sense to go that route for a light-weight front-end to heavy mod_perl backend servers, of course. I don't have any experience embedding perl in things like Apache other that typing "perl Makefile.PL make", but Simon's article did make me wonder. So I'm curious from you that understand this stuff better: Could a microperl/miniperl be embedded in Apache and end up with a reasonably light-weight perl enabled Apache? I understand you would not have Dynaloader support, but it might be nice for simple rewriting. Curiously yours, Bill Moseley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microperl
- Original Message - From: "Bill Moseley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:30 PM Subject: Microperl I don't build mod_rewrite into a mod_perl Apache as I like rewriting with mod_perl much better. But it doesn't make much sense to go that route for a light-weight front-end to heavy mod_perl backend servers, of course. Just curious: what don't you like about mod_rewrite? Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microperl
At 07:38 PM 11/15/00 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: - Original Message - From: "Bill Moseley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:30 PM Subject: Microperl I don't build mod_rewrite into a mod_perl Apache as I like rewriting with mod_perl much better. But it doesn't make much sense to go that route for a light-weight front-end to heavy mod_perl backend servers, of course. Just curious: what don't you like about mod_rewrite? You ask that on the mod_perl list? ;) It's not perl, of course. I like those perl sections a lot. Oh, there were the weird segfaults that I had for months and months. http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/182/2000/10/0/4480696/ Nothing against mod_rewrite -- I was just wondering if a small perl could be embedded with out bloating the server too much. Bill Moseley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microperl
- Original Message - From: "Bill Moseley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Microperl I don't build mod_rewrite into a mod_perl Apache as I like rewriting with mod_perl much better. But it doesn't make much sense to go that route for a light-weight front-end to heavy mod_perl backend servers, of course. Just curious: what don't you like about mod_rewrite? You ask that on the mod_perl list? ;) It's not perl, of course. Yes, if it weren't for a lightweight httpd with mod_rewrite able to selectively proxy to several machines my mod_perl servers would have melted long ago. I like those perl sections a lot. Oh, there were the weird segfaults that I had for months and months. http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/182/2000/10/0/4480696/ I usually force a proxy with [p], or immediate local action with [L] instead of falling through. I don't know if that would have avoided your problem or not. Nothing against mod_rewrite -- I was just wondering if a small perl could be embedded with out bloating the server too much. I don't think 'small' and 'perl' belong in the same sentence... Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microperl
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Robin Berjon wrote: I know what you mean but this is MicroPerl, not Perl. I don't know how much difference it makes, but it's certainly smaller. I'm afraid I can't help with embedding it though. I like the idea, not just for rewrites (I'm quite happy with mod_rewrite most of the time) but for all the conf stuff. It doesn't have dynaloader, but you could still do things like read conf from a flat file db or that sort of thing. Hacking down the size of the code is good, but now when it comes down to hacking down features, and features must go if you are to shrink perl. Ok so the fullsize language is a ~350 K addon to apache, for that we get all the good stuff like superoptimising compiler, that is very smart about figuring out 'smart' code. If you really want to go that way, PHP4 probably one of the better shots you have. Besides PHP was vowed to be an improved language over the perl for the web development, and to degree it is if you just want to hack together a small database enabled comments book. However me knowing perl is advantage over PHP, because horsepower is cheap, disk troughput will always faster than that of a network speed, modularity and superflexibility of the perl will always will be irreplacable. MicroPerl is akin to what PHP zealots used to tout PHP as, and yes perl can be awkward to read at times, but thats why it is good, there is breathing space wasted to let coder's brain sort of relax, like long function calls for invoking Regular Expressions on the string vs =~. PHP in some ways is faster than perl, but hey, I do not compare Saleen Mustang to a Lamborgini Diablo. Hope you will make the right choice for yourself, not us ;-) Pavel
