RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-07 Thread Ged Haywood
Hi guys, On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote: > > should be discussed here, but feel free to invite modperl@ users > > to join the discussion. i'm sure there are more interested here > > than geoff already though. > > > and I'm not _that_ interested ;) The volume of mail on the dev list

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-07 Thread Stas Bekman
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Kyle Oppenheim wrote: > A while ago, we tried to subclass Apache::PerlRun to create a simple > template language (everybody has to do one, right?). However, we ended up > having to pilfer most of the code and start a new module because we ended up > overriding just about ever

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-06 Thread Kyle Oppenheim
A while ago, we tried to subclass Apache::PerlRun to create a simple template language (everybody has to do one, right?). However, we ended up having to pilfer most of the code and start a new module because we ended up overriding just about every method (that, and PerlRun was changing too much b

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-06 Thread Geoffrey Young
> should be discussed here, but feel free to invite modperl@ > users to join > the discussion. i'm sure there are more interested here than geoff > already though. and I'm not _that_ interested ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [

Re: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote: > so do you think we should take this discussion to the modperl list? I'm > not sure how many people are on the dev list, since other than Geoff > nobody has followed up on my request. should be discussed here, but feel free to invite modperl@ users to joi

Re: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Stas Bekman
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote: > > > Still can you please share your thoughts about the new Apache::Registry. > > How would you like it to be? Thanks. > > my thoughts are already in Apache::{PerlRun,RegistryNG,PerlRunXS}, etc. :) > i'd rather s

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote: > what's the replacement of NameWithVirtualHost? Obviously we need something > to distinguish between vhs. well, if possible we should distinguish between the uri and requested resource instead. in otherwords, we have the: r->uri => r->filename translatio

Re: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote: > Still can you please share your thoughts about the new Apache::Registry. > How would you like it to be? Thanks. my thoughts are already in Apache::{PerlRun,RegistryNG,PerlRunXS}, etc. :) i'd rather stand aside and let you and others take the lead on this

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Stas Bekman
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote: > > > I wonder how many people actually take advantage of NameWithVirtualHost=1. > > seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames) is a much cleaner solution > > that invites less problems/confusion. > > using

Re: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Stas Bekman
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote: > > > I think Doug has planned to have it as a standalone project, which is fine > > with me, but it's absolutely a must to have it in the core distribution, > > rather than in Bundle. Most of the people use mod_p

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Geoffrey Young wrote: > I wonder how many people actually take advantage of NameWithVirtualHost=1. > seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames) is a much cleaner solution > that invites less problems/confusion. using filenames makes for long packages names == lengthy loo

Re: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-05 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Stas Bekman wrote: > I think Doug has planned to have it as a standalone project, which is fine > with me, but it's absolutely a must to have it in the core distribution, > rather than in Bundle. Most of the people use mod_perl because > Apache::Registry and PerlRun, so havin

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-04 Thread Stas Bekman
> I wonder how many people actually take advantage of > NameWithVirtualHost=1. seems that the PerlRun methodology (filenames) > is a much cleaner solution that invites less problems/confusion. No matter how many are using it has to be there. I guess the default one can be done using inodes and no

RE: Apache::Registry design

2001-09-04 Thread Geoffrey Young
> -Original Message- > From: Stas Bekman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:27 AM > To: modperl-2.0 dev-list > Subject: Apache::Registry design > > > I'm planning to work on Apache::Registry for 2.0 and want to > hear how it > should be different from wh