When I see 'use Apache2', i dont see a version number. I completely
concur with Stas that tieing it to a version number is a bad idea. But i
dont care whether it is Apache2 or ApacheBlue or ApacheNextGen, so long as
it is different from mp1 the namespace.
(snip)
mp1 and mp2 are sufficiently
Stas Bekman wrote:
[now take your time to read the Example::CLONE manpage in [1] which
explains all the issues and shows possible solutions]
To save you the hussle, here is the manpage (but you will probably want to
see the code and the tests anyway).
__END__
=head1 NAME
Example::CLONE - Demonst
Stas Bekman wrote:
As I've suspected our API is not perl thread-safe (note that perl's
thread-safe definition and the general thread-safe concept have little
to do with each other). I've started writing some tests and it's
segfaults all over.
Here is a very trivial test, which segfault:
#!perl -
As I've suspected our API is not perl thread-safe (note that perl's
thread-safe definition and the general thread-safe concept have little to
do with each other). I've started writing some tests and it's segfaults
all over.
It all comes to the same old problem of perl cloning the objects when a
Geoffrey Young wrote:
so, what specifically did you have in mind, on this single issue, when
you
say that a rename will make matters worse than they are now?
You aren't planning for the future.
I don't think that answers my question, but ok :)
What part have I missed?
The "the 50 million modules
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Untill
now, with a few little changes or sometimes with no changes at all
(depending on what API was used) they could have the code running under
mp1 and mp2. With this rename they either need to split their code and
maintain different versions, which are otherwise identical,
> Untill
> now, with a few little changes or sometimes with no changes at all
> (depending on what API was used) they could have the code running under
> mp1 and mp2. With this rename they either need to split their code and
> maintain different versions, which are otherwise identical, or have an
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Perrin Harkins wrote:
I have some anecdotal evidence of support. I told a couple of my
co-workers about the PMC decision to change to Apache2. Their reactions
ranged from "Thank god" to "It's the only sane choice." I was actually
surprised that everyone was so in favor
Stas Bekman wrote:
Jacqui, you've forgotten to CC the list :)
(again) - Doh!
Render Web wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
as a
community, we can decide to either stay with the current trunk, with
all
it's ramifications, or break some promises and fix what many think
is a very
major
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 12:49 -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
> It makes perfect sense to people who don't use the mod_perl API, but just
> run registry scripts. And it's probably the majority of our users. So I
> guess the rename will certainly favor the registry users, who really don't
> care about th
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:58 -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
as a
community, we can decide to either stay with the current trunk, with all
it's ramifications, or break some promises and fix what many think is a very
major problem.
I believe the so called *commun
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:58 -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> > as a
> > community, we can decide to either stay with the current trunk, with all
> > it's ramifications, or break some promises and fix what many think is a very
> > major problem.
>
> I believe the so called *commu
Randy Kobes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just so that everyone is aware of this proposal,
> perhaps the original message about the unstable
> branch should also be sent to the modperl@ list?
Not a good idea, IMO. Let's not discuss anything
on the user mailing list unless we're discussing
the tr
Dominique Quatravaux wrote:
[...]
I think all of these folks are quite able to do a quick s/use
Apache::/use Apache2::/ or something: none of the proposals so far are
rocket science, really. Actually we can (and are eager to!) deal with
I'm afraid this is exactly where people fail to see the proble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Due to my recent series of blunders on this list, I wonder if
stepping up this particular plate is wise. Oh well :-)
Stas Bekman wrote:
| From the developer's point of view, this rename is insane. You
| spend most of your time coding using the API. You
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What you are proposing is a blow in the face not only to the users
> but to the developer's in first place, completely undermining any
> words that were said to the users before.
I do believe there is a way to provide a decent compat layer for
existing mp
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
> > Geoffrey Young wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> basically, my position is that mod_perl is not at 2.0 yet, so until it
> >> does
> >> the entire API is up for grabs.
> >
> >
> > Your (current pmc's) position completely disregards the
> > fa
Stas Bekman wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
[...]
basically, my position is that mod_perl is not at 2.0 yet, so until it
does
the entire API is up for grabs.
Your (current pmc's) position completely disregards the fact that when
we announced the first RC1 we said that the API is *frozen* and very
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> > as a community, we can decide to either stay with the
> > current trunk, with all it's ramifications, or break
> > some promises and fix what many think is a very major
> > problem.
>
> I believe the so called *community* has no i
Geoffrey Young wrote:
as a
community, we can decide to either stay with the current trunk, with all
it's ramifications, or break some promises and fix what many think is a very
major problem.
I believe the so called *community* has no idea what is awaiting them.
Hardly anybody is on that dev list.
Stas Bekman wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> [...]
>
>> basically, my position is that mod_perl is not at 2.0 yet, so until it
>> does
>> the entire API is up for grabs.
>
>
> Your (current pmc's) position completely disregards the fact that when
> we announced the first RC1 we said that the
Geoffrey Young wrote:
[...]
basically, my position is that mod_perl is not at 2.0 yet, so until it does
the entire API is up for grabs.
Your (current pmc's) position completely disregards the fact that when we
announced the first RC1 we said that the API is *frozen* and very minor
bug fixes may
Dominique Quatravaux wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> | "nuke your old 1.99 install and try again"
>
> Fair enough for me, although a "porting from v1.99 to v2" piece of POD
> would be a plus.
yes :)
I guess we didn't make that clear, but yes, before we would officially
release anything all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Geoffrey Young wrote:
| "nuke your old 1.99 install and try again"
Fair enough for me, although a "porting from v1.99 to v2" piece of POD
would be a plus.
- --
Dominique QUATRAVAUX Ingénieur senior
01 44 42 00 08
> - you cannot make, test, or install the unstable branch over any
> other version of mod_perl-1.99
ok, let's talk about this specific detail in another thread :)
I've pretty much layed out my own thoughts on why I think this needs to be,
but I'll do so again here.
basically, my position
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I really don't see how it can be any other way - I absolutely,
>>positively do not want to deal with questions about how prior beta
>>versions mix with later beta versions and, eventually, the official
>>2.0.
>
>
Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I really don't see how it can be any other way - I absolutely,
> positively do not want to deal with questions about how prior beta
> versions mix with later beta versions and, eventually, the official
> 2.0.
So then, the proposed branch is a re
27 matches
Mail list logo
