Ok, is mod_perl 2.0 alpha, beta, stable, what? :)
--
Jeff Stuart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Doug MacEachern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:16 PM
To: Jeffrey A. Stuart
Cc: modperl-2.0 dev-list
Subject: Re: mod_perl 2.0
modperl-2.0 in cvs works w
modperl-2.0 in cvs works with apache-2.0, see 1.x's mod_perl_cvs.pod,
replace 'modperl' with 'modperl-2.0' to check it out.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, brian moseley wrote:
> in my tests, if i do
similar test works fine for me:
package My;
use base qw(Cwd Socket Fcntl);
sub new { bless {} }
package main;
my $my = My->new();
for (@My::ISA) {
printf "is%sa $_\n", $my->isa($_) ? "" : " not ";
}
prints:
isa Cwd
isa Sock
What's the status of mod_perl 2.0? Is it anywhere close to being ready for
beta? Since it SOUNDS like Apache 2.0 is coming somewhat CLOSE to a release
now... I'm looking forward to the combo of Apache and mod_perl 2.0! :)
However, if mod_perl 2.0 won't be ready in time, will there be any work do
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, brian moseley wrote:
>
> > sadder to find out
> > that if you specify >1 class with 'use base', isa() only
> > tests positively for the first specified class :/
>
> how do you mean?
in my tests, if i do
package My;
use base
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, brian moseley wrote:
> i've been using isa() in my stuff quite a bit for type
> checking. sad to hear it causes bloat!
well, its probably only a few hundred bytes per-package.
> sadder to find out
> that if you specify >1 class with 'use base', isa() only
> tests positive
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Kurt George Gjerde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone tried building 2.0 for win32 yet, or is this too early?
too early.
> I tried this a couple of weeks ago without any luck.
>
> (I'm eagerly waiting for multi-threading support :)
it will be worth the wait if you're currently
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> instead of using $cgi, I've left $query. So I had segfaults with the
> following trace:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> [Switching to Thread 1026 (LWP 19168)]
> 0x4024a753 in Perl_gv_fetchpv (my_perl=0x81b36e0, nambeg=0x81b3cb
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> [Mon Jun 18 01:23:14 2001] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] CGI.pm: Server
> closed socket during multipart read (client aborted?).
>
> [Mon Jun 18 01:23:15 2001] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] CGI.pm: Server
> closed socket during multipart read (client aborted?)
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> base.pm has caused a problem or two for me in the past,
> but i don't recall the specifics. it is slower than the
> old way and creates some bloat by calling
> $pkg->isa($base), which in turn creates
> *$pkgISA::CACHE:: so i prefer to avoid it in
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> modules/cgiupload fails on my side with:
>
> [Mon Jun 18 00:55:47 2001] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] CGI.pm: Server
> closed socket during multipart read (client aborted?).
this is currently failing for me too, probably a recent-ish change to
apache filte
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> What do you think about adding some semantics for the debug printing
> during 'make test'. So users can visually tell warnings from errors, and
> errors from notice statements.
>
> so we can use:
>
> mpt_warn("this is a warning");
> mpt_error("this i
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I was wondering whether
>
> use base 'foo';
>
> won't be shorter than
>
> use foo;
> our @ISA = 'foo';
>
> in the build modules?
yes, it is shorter :)
> or is there any reason for not using 'base.pm'?
base.pm has caused a problem
Hi,
Has anyone tried building 2.0 for win32 yet, or is this too early?
I tried this a couple of weeks ago without any luck.
(I'm eagerly waiting for multi-threading support :)
-Kurt.
__
kurt george gjerde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dept. of media studies, university of bergen
14 matches
Mail list logo
