Re: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
Yea, I tried that, but it was still unhappy. There are apparently a couple of other tweaks that needed to be done. I didn't think too much about it; after the first error, I went looking for information and found the patch. http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/textproc/eperl/Makefile cheers, Todd At 01:21 AM 7/9/01, Mithun Bhattacharya wrote: >The only thing I had to fix was that the Makefile didnt know about >version 5.6 otherwise it compiled cleanly... Ofcourse there is a issue >with a function declaration which gcc didnt like but it got fixed when >I >commented it out. > > > There's a patch to make it work with 5.6 floating around, but I > haven't > > seen anything else new in some time.
RE: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
At 02:40 PM 7/8/01, Perrin Harkins wrote: > > We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run > into > > something we needed of which it was not capable. What are you > > thinking of? > >It's not a question of it not being capable, it's just that most >people seem >to choose one of the more full-featured tools. Yea, I'm a glutton for punishment. :/ I don't necessarily mind, though - reinventing the wheel periodically is a good learning experience. >There's lots of talk on the list about Apache::ASP, Embperl, Mason, >etc., but not much about ePerl. (Maybe I should do some research in >the mail archives and graph the results. Sounds like a magazine >column...) Also, I think Text::Template stole some users away from >ePerl. It probably doesn't help that ePerl isn't even listed at perl.apache.org with the others. >Like SSI, ePerl is perfect for some people who just want a simple >solution >that stays out of their way. ...and people that are too lazy to bother remembering the difference between [+ +], [- -], and [! !]. cheers, Todd
Re: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
At 07:47 AM 7/8/01, Ged Haywood wrote: >On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Todd Finney wrote: > > > We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run > into > > something we needed of which it was not capable. > >Didn't I read somewhere that there were security concerns? There was a fix made in 1998 regarding QUERY_STRING, but I think that was the last time anything like that came up. I'm not even sure there's been a new release since then; I suppose that could mean either Ralf has lost interest in it, or it's just 'done'. It's probably a little bit of both. There's a patch to make it work with 5.6 floating around, but I haven't seen anything else new in some time. Todd
RE: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
> We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run into > something we needed of which it was not capable. What are you > thinking of? It's not a question of it not being capable, it's just that most people seem to choose one of the more full-featured tools. There's lots of talk on the list about Apache::ASP, Embperl, Mason, etc., but not much about ePerl. (Maybe I should do some research in the mail archives and graph the results. Sounds like a magazine column...) Also, I think Text::Template stole some users away from ePerl. Like SSI, ePerl is perfect for some people who just want a simple solution that stays out of their way. Also, I believe that security issue Ged referred to was fixed by the author. - Perrin
Re: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
Hi there, On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Todd Finney wrote: > We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run into > something we needed of which it was not capable. Didn't I read somewhere that there were security concerns? > Just asking. Ditto. 73, Ged.
