Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, that requires the lower layer's cooperation (which I cannot get),
>>i.e. access to its buffer.
>>
>
> could you turn off apr_file_t buffering and use PerlIOBuf buffering
> instead?
I think yes, I think actually that'
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Yes, that requires the lower layer's cooperation (which I cannot get),
> i.e. access to its buffer.
could you turn off apr_file_t buffering and use PerlIOBuf buffering
instead?
-
To
>>There is a certain level of urgency on shaking well our PerlIO demands,
>>because 5.8.0 seems to come out any moment now. And it'll really suck if
>>there will be changes needed once 5.8.0 is released. I wish apr folks
>>would answer my question about exposing the apr's read buffer, so we c
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> You mean older bleadperls aren't back compat with 5.6.1's IO?
no bleedperls are compat with 5.6.1's IO.
older bleedperls are not compat with new bleedperls.
> I guess this requirement can go away once 5.8.0 is released.
right.
> There is a certain
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>why would Apache::SubProcess be unavailable? It works with bleadperl and
>>with some more investigation will work with 5.6.1. Only APR::PerlIO
>>requires the latest bleadperl.
>>
>
> see commit about compiling APR::PerlI
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Stas Bekman wrote:
> why would Apache::SubProcess be unavailable? It works with bleadperl and
> with some more investigation will work with 5.6.1. Only APR::PerlIO
> requires the latest bleadperl.
see commit about compiling APR::PerlIO with older bleedperls.
the 5.6.1 fal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dougm 01/12/17 16:23:03
>
> Modified:t/response/TestApache subprocess.pm
> Log:
> skip subprocess test unless Apache::SubProcess is available
why would Apache::SubProcess be unavailable? It works with bleadperl and
with some more investigation will w
