Re: Doc clarifications requested
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Ron Savage wrote:
I see this item:
if one wishes to simply read POST data, there is the more modern
{setup,should,get}_client_block API, and even more modern filter API.
Along with continued support for read(STDIN, ...) and $r->read($buf,
$r->headers_in->{'content-length'})
I feel the sentence stating with 'Along' should not belong under that
dot point.
Consider it as a footnote? Could put () around it I guess.
Also, it's not a complete sentence, so what does it mean?
what's not complete? Please be more explicit.
He means that starting the sentence with "Along with" is not correct
English usage. Try changing "Along with" to "There is also."
ah, of course, there should have been a comma, instead of a period.
there is the more modern
{setup,should,get}_client_block API, and even more modern filter API,
along with continued support for read(STDIN, ...) and $r->read($buf,
$r->headers_in->{'content-length'}).
Thanks Perrin.
__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH --> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Doc clarifications requested
Stas Bekman wrote:
Ron Savage wrote:
I see this item:
if one wishes to simply read POST data, there is the more modern
{setup,should,get}_client_block API, and even more modern filter API.
Along with continued support for read(STDIN, ...) and $r->read($buf,
$r->headers_in->{'content-length'})
I feel the sentence stating with 'Along' should not belong under that
dot point.
Consider it as a footnote? Could put () around it I guess.
Also, it's not a complete sentence, so what does it mean?
what's not complete? Please be more explicit.
He means that starting the sentence with "Along with" is not correct
English usage. Try changing "Along with" to "There is also."
- Perrin
Re: Doc clarifications requested
(c) Would it be possible to add a reference for is_initial_req? Let's try to keep this document is simple as possible. Think of it as a temporary helper map to find out what happened to some mp1 method that is not there anymore, or working differently. Remember that eventually, people won't need to refer to the compat doc. Since they will all write in mp2 API. I suggest the following solution: We add a pointer to the Apache::RequestRec manpage (which should document is_initial_req()) from that entry. In the Apache::RequestRec manpage we add a xref to main() (Apache::RequestRec) and the other way around. sorry, should have been Apache::RequestUtil Please check an updated entry: http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/compat/compat.html#C__r_E_gt_is_main_ __ Stas BekmanJAm_pH --> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Doc clarifications requested
Ron Savage wrote:
Folks
(1)
On this page:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/compat/compat.html
Under this heading:
$r->args in an Array Context
Why not using a direct pointer ;)
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/compat/compat.html#C__r_E_gt_args__in_an_Array_Context
I see this item:
if one wishes to simply read POST data, there is the more modern
{setup,should,get}_client_block API, and even more modern filter API.
Along with continued support for read(STDIN, ...) and $r->read($buf,
$r->headers_in->{'content-length'})
I feel the sentence stating with 'Along' should not belong under that
dot point.
Consider it as a footnote? Could put () around it I guess.
Also, it's not a complete sentence, so what does it mean?
what's not complete? Please be more explicit.
Some of the entries in this document do need expansion and clarification. So
if something is not clear, let's figure out how to make it clear and fix it.
It'd immensely helpful if those who use mod_perl 2.0 and learn the ropes help
to improve the docs, and release our fingers from writing docs and let us
write some code ;)
(2)
Same page.
http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/compat/compat.html#C__r_E_gt_is_main_
I see this text:
$r ->is_main is not part of the mod_perl 2.0 API. Use !$r->main
instead.
(a) Is the '!' correct?
Yes. See:
http://perl.apache.org/docs/1.0/api/Apache.html#_r_E_gt_is_main
(b) Should it refer to is_inital_req
s/is_inital_req/is_initial_req/
why? $r->main works on the request object, it doesn't indicate the kind of
request. So you can be in sub-request, and request $r from the initial_req.
If you were using $r->is_main to figure out whether it's is_initial_req, you
were probably doing a wrong thing, no? So I think in this sense these two
functions are unrelated. However, read on.
(c) Would it be possible to add a reference for is_initial_req?
Let's try to keep this document is simple as possible. Think of it as a
temporary helper map to find out what happened to some mp1 method that is not
there anymore, or working differently. Remember that eventually, people won't
need to refer to the compat doc. Since they will all write in mp2 API.
I suggest the following solution:
We add a pointer to the Apache::RequestRec manpage (which should document
is_initial_req()) from that entry. In the Apache::RequestRec manpage we add a
xref to main() (Apache::RequestRec) and the other way around.
Sounds good?
BTW, did I mention that patches are *very* welcome? :)
Thank you.
__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH --> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
