Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:32:13 EST, Stas Bekman wrote:
Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:55:12 EST, Stas Bekman wrote:
+++ src/modules/perl/mod_perl.c (working copy)
@@ -573,6 +573,17 @@
MP_threads_started = 0;
MP_post_post_config_phase = 0;
+/* with USE
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:32:13PM -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> We would still need to provide some sort of workaround. May be we will
> just redefine the macro called from perl_alloc. I'll have to see how
> Nicholas solves it first.
>
> So Nicholas, the ball is on your ground.
Why me? Surel
This discussion seems to have dwindled, and I don't have a clear idea if we all
think moving towards case-insensitivity for our configuration directives is a
good
idea or not.
So, can I have a clear vote on these 2 issues:
1. Consider all our configuration directives for case-insensitivity
2. Make
As it stands, there is some division on the idea of sending out X-Powered-By
headers
just like PHP does. The various idea that I believe were suggested were:
1. Send it by default, runtime disable with PerlOptions -HTTPExpose
2. Send it by default, no way to disable
3. Not send it by default, runt
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
This discussion seems to have dwindled, and I don't have a clear idea if
we all
think moving towards case-insensitivity for our configuration directives
is a good
idea or not.
So, can I have a clear vote on these 2 issues:
1. Consider all our configuration directives
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
As it stands, there is some division on the idea of sending out
X-Powered-By headers
just like PHP does. The various idea that I believe were suggested were:
1. Send it by default, runtime disable with PerlOptions -HTTPExpose
2. Send it by default, no way to disable
3.
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:32:13PM -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
We would still need to provide some sort of workaround. May be we will
just redefine the macro called from perl_alloc. I'll have to see how
Nicholas solves it first.
So Nicholas, the ball is on your ground.
Why
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 14:34 -0800, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> As it stands, there is some division on the idea of sending out X-Powered-By
> headers
> just like PHP does. The various idea that I believe were suggested were:
>
> 1. Send it by default, runtime disable with PerlOptions -HTTPExpos
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 14:34 -0800, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
As it stands, there is some division on the idea of sending out X-Powered-By
headers
just like PHP does. The various idea that I believe were suggested were:
1. Send it by default, runtime disable with PerlOptions
Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
[...]
So, can I have a clear vote on these 2 issues:
1. Consider all our configuration directives for case-insensitivity
2. Make PerlOptions case-insensitive
I believe your vote proposal doesn't state the arguments correcly. I
believe it should mentio
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
[...]
So, can I have a clear vote on these 2 issues:
1. Consider all our configuration directives for case-insensitivity
2. Make PerlOptions case-insensitive
I believe your vote proposal doesn't state the arguments correcly
Stas Bekman wrote:
6. document how to add this header from their perl code.
+1
Would also allow to expose even more details for those who want to:
$PerlConfig .=
"Header set X-Powered-By '$ENV{MOD_PERL} CGI.pm/$CGI::VERSION'";
(requires mod_headers, which comes with Apache2)
---
Markus Wichitill wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
6. document how to add this header from their perl code.
+1
Would also allow to expose even more details for those who want to:
$PerlConfig .=
"Header set X-Powered-By '$ENV{MOD_PERL} CGI.pm/$CGI::VERSION'";
>
(requires mod_headers, which comes w
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
[...]
>> So, even thought we started talking about specifically PerlOptions, I
>> wanted to get a good idea of how people felt about the rest of our
>> configuration directives.
>> Makes sense?
>
> Yup.
+1 to case-insensitiv
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
[...]
So, even thought we started talking about specifically PerlOptions, I
wanted to get a good idea of how people felt about the rest of our
configuration directives.
Makes sense?
Yup.
+1 to case-insensit
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>> [...]
>>
So, even thought we started talking about specifically PerlOptions, I
wanted to get a good idea of how people felt about the rest of our
>>
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
[...]
So, even thought we started talking about specifically PerlOptions, I
wanted to get a good idea of how people felt about the rest of our
confi
> My reasoning for not including it even as an optinal feature, is that it
> introduces an unnecessary overhead. even though it's just a flag check,
> if it happens for all http phases, it happens for each phase.
actually, that's a good point. unlike php, which is content only, at what
point do
Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> /me remembers a talk where he uses mod_perl to remove that "silly
> X-Powered-By PHP thing"
ROTFL (and in complete agreement).
--
Joe Schaefer
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMA
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:09:52PM -0500, Stas Bekman wrote:
Gisle Aas wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How do I check the limit for pthread_key_create on linux?
On my Gentoo box I find the limit here:
$ grep PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX /usr/include/bits/local_lim.h
#def
20 matches
Mail list logo
