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)
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.
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)
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)
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
ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
At 06:10 PM 7/7/01, Perrin Harkins wrote: if i'm not mistaken, Apache::ePerl builds a new interpreter, which also seems like overkill for many needs. It's pretty easy to install, really. However, it's not very popular these days because it doesn't have all the features people end up needing. 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? I'm not trying to start a holy war - embperl is darn nifty, and I haven't used any of the other packages enough to have a solid opinion of them. Right tool for the job, use what's comfortable, blah blah blah. ePerl is butt-simple to install, and a snap to learn (put your perl in ? here !). We've been using it for ~4 years (I think), and have never seen a problem with it. IIRC, according to the various benchmarks that bounce around periodically, it's not as fast as some of the other packages, but that's never been an issue for us. Just asking. cheers, Todd
