bundles both (like Randy Korbes
maintains for Windows).
From my point of view much more important for Revitalizing Embperl is on
the one hand people that helps developing and testing and on the other
hand do some promontion outside of this list, like writing articles, put
modules on CPAN that uses
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:21:21PM +, Ed Grimm wrote:
> I would have no problem with an additional package that bundled the two,
> and was maintained by both orgs. I think that would be great. However,
> I feel that merging the groups and the products, and not releasing
> stand-alone versions
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Marcus Doemling wrote:
>
> I think one key improvement would be to turn mod_perl into
> mod_embperl. What people really want when they are considering
> mod_perl is not better performing CGI scripts it is something like
> Embperl. I don't think these days there are a lot of pe
Marcus Doemling wrote:
> I think one key improvement would be to turn mod_perl into
> mod_embperl ...
> so mod_perl by itself in not "useful"...
The idea is nice, though I'd rather see it as a deeper integration into
mod_perl.
mod_perl IS useful.
As an Embperl "end user" I use mod_perl for it's s
Marcus Doemling wrote:
I think one key improvement would be to turn mod_perl into mod_embperl.
What
people really want when they are considering mod_perl is not better performing
CGI scripts it is something like Embperl. I don't think these days there are a
lot of people wanting to do pure CGI p
I think one key improvement would be to turn mod_perl into mod_embperl. What
people really want when they are considering mod_perl is not better performing
CGI scripts it is something like Embperl. I don't think these days there are a
lot of people wanting to do pure CGI programming, so mod_per
