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
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
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
> 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: [
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
> -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
14 matches
Mail list logo