"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a feeling it is going to end up being possible only
> with LWP...
>
> > I don't exactly understand your problem, but from what I can see you
> > should be able to do what you want with mod_rewrite if you just use a
> > regexp which contains a qu
IronHand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a little problem. A wrote a perl-script to manage
guestbook-like
> section of my page. Script is working, but from the shell. When I
try to
> post a data through html form I get an error saying that post method
is
> not suported by this document. It's
"Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm baffled by the insistence of everyone on this thread that a bunch of
> static pages like the ones on perl.apache.org should be served by
> mod_perl. Shall I show you all how to change Apache's headers? We can
> say we're running mod_perl/2000 f
"Ed Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I really like the look of the take23 site as well, and I would be happy as
a
> clam if we could get modperl.org. I'd even be willing to chip in some
> (money/time/effort) to see whether we could get modperl.org.
ok, money is tight and time is short but he
"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> I'd love to get all of these onto take23, but of course that
requires some
> Matt> sort of effort from someone to gather them together and put together
a web
> Matt> page (in XML!)
"Matt Sergeant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> > just beware that not all browsers that claim to accept gzip compression
> > actually do...
>
> No its the other way around. Not all browsers that can accept gzip send
> out Accept-Encoding: gzip. Notably
"Gunther Birznieks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the context of what you are talking about, I think giving ExecCGI
> permissions should not allow them to change mod_perl handlers or do
> anything to adjust mod_perl either. ExecCGI is a lot less problematic than
> exposing access to mod_perl
"Richard L. Goerwitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>
> > ...I would advocate an ExecModPerl option or something like that so that
> > user's could not arbitrarily install their own Perl Handlers.
>
> If a user has ExecCGI privileges he or she can commandeer the most imp
"Adi Fairbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Kaufman wrote:
> >
> > $Location{"blah"} = {
> > require => "group payer_manager, payer_group demo"
> > };
> > should do the trick.
>
> I wrote:
> > Thank
"Adi Fairbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No I tried that (sorry I should have said so). I think:
>
>
> $Location{"blah"} = {
> require => ["group payer_manager", "payer_group demo"]
> };
>
>
> is equivalent to:
>
>
> require group payer_manager payer_group demo
>
>
> but I'm not s
"Adam Prime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the responses richard has gotten
> haven't really touched on the core of the problem. That mod_perl isn't
> exactly friendly to sysadmin's who want to run apache on a (i'm guessing),
> student accessed server, with u
"Adam Prime" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the responses richard has gotten
> haven't really touched on the core of the problem. That mod_perl isn't
> exactly friendly to sysadmin's who want to run apache on a (i'm guessing),
> student accessed server, with u
"Thomas Klausner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a module that can do "Stacked Handler Pipelining", but
> doesn't pass around tied filehandles but data structures ?
Andreas König's Apache::HeavyCGI is a nice alternative approach to the use of stacked
handlers.
> If there isn't, could
13 matches
Mail list logo
