Hi,
The module would handle the requests before any other
modules and check
in its database if there is a cached page for that request uri. If the
page is cached, it will send the cached page and return DONE.
As Matt already said, Embperl 2.x will support exactly this (among
Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect:
The idea of a 404 handler will fit perfectly with mod_rewrite: I can
create a 404 handler that writes the page to a static file and to the
browser and a rewrite rule that redirects request of the dynamic
The problem I'm having is not to write the contents, the problem is to
get the contents I'm going to write. I must get the output of the
dynamic page (that can be CGI, PHP, SSI, or anything) before it's sent
to the browser... I'm now trying to do it with Apache::OutputChain.
[]s
Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect:
The problem I'm having is not to write the contents, the problem is to
get the contents I'm going to write. I must get the output of the
dynamic page (that can be CGI, PHP, SSI, or anything) before it's sent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes) wrote:
The problem I'm having is not to write the contents, the problem is to
get the contents I'm going to write. I must get the output of the
dynamic page (that can be CGI, PHP, SSI, or anything) before it's sent
to the browser... I'm
Hi,
Recently I started to have problems in developing my CGIs because in my
new job most of the servers run Netscape instead of Apache. The
administrator told me that the reason is that Netscape has a better
performance than Apache 1.3. I'm now developing a module that caches in
Yes. It's Apache::Registry.
On 12-Jul-2000 Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes wrote:
Hi,
Recently I started to have problems in developing my CGIs because in my
new job most of the servers run Netscape instead of Apache. The
administrator told me that the reason is that Netscape has a
"j" == jbodnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
j Yes. It's Apache::Registry.
No. Registry does not cache the generated pages. Try any of the
standard "template" packages like Mason or AxKit.
Sorry. I was attempting to answer what I thought was his real question. He
mentioned performance of CGI scripts and so Apache::Registry would be the ideal
choice. I don't think he wants to rewrite his CGIs so the template packages
won't work for him.
On 12-Jul-2000 Vivek Khera wrote:
"j" ==
How do I use Apache::Registry to cache pages in disk? The module
I have
in mind is something transparent to the programmer, you just tell apache
that some CGI (or PHP, or any request) will be cached and the server
will cache the stdout in disk, and next time someone requests a page,
the
Perhaps you'd rather use something like the squid proxy, then:
http://www.squid-cache.org/
When you decide to switch back to Apache, which may not take too long,
you can continue to use squid as a front-end proxy. =)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes) wrote:
How do
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes wrote:
How do I use Apache::Registry to cache pages in disk? The module
I have
in mind is something transparent to the programmer, you just tell apache
that some CGI (or PHP, or any request) will be cached and the server
will cache
Hi,
The module would handle the requests before any other modules and check
in its database if there is a cached page for that request uri. If the
page is cached, it will send the cached page and return DONE. If the
page is not cached, it will let Apache handle the request
Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect:
How do I use Apache::Registry to cache pages in disk? The module
I have
in mind is something transparent to the programmer, you just tell apache
that some CGI (or PHP, or any request) will be cached and
So is it true that Netscape has a better performance than Apache 1.3?
Here, we are trying to move over from Netscape to Apache not so much coz of
performance issues with the web server, but more to add mod_perl/fastcgi
and cool stuff like that.
-Pramod
At 12:18 PM 7/12/00 +0200, Luis Henrique
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes wrote:
Hi,
The module would handle the requests before any other modules and check
in its database if there is a cached page for that request uri. If the
page is cached, it will send the cached page and return DONE.
What if the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (darren chamberlain) wrote:
Luis,
Write a handler (or cgi script, or registry script, or NSAPI plugin, or
PHP page) that handles 404 Errors, generates the (static) page, and
writes it to the location in the file system where the requested page
should live. The next time it is
According to Ken Williams:
Another option is to set up whatever handler you want, on a development
or staging server (i.e., not the live one), and grab the pages with
lynx -dump or GET or an LWP script, and write them to the proper places
in the filesystem where the live server can access
Matt Sergeant
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes wrote:
How do I use Apache::Registry to cache pages in disk? The module
I have
in mind is something transparent to the programmer, you just tell apache
that some CGI (or PHP, or any request) will be cached and
Luis Henrique Cassis Fagundes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect:
Hi,
The module would handle the requests before any other modules and check
in its database if there is a cached page for that request uri. If the
page is cached, it will send the cached page and
John Edstrom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect:
The problem here is that you can't simply cache the page, because the
server and even the script can't know when to replace the cached page
until after its heard from the database or the source that is feeding
the database. It
at a time earlier than now, darren chamberlain wrote:
Write a handler (or cgi script, or registry script, or NSAPI plugin, or PHP
page) that handles 404 Errors, generates the (static) page, and writes it to
the location in the file system where the requested page should live. The
next time
Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Putting squid in front of an Apache server used to be very popular - has
it fallen out of favor? Most of the answers given in this thread seem
to be more of the roll-your-own-cache variety.
Squid's OK provided you can coax Apache to send the header
Or have them be resident in memory, which squid can do. Why reinvent this?
b/c to use squid, you have to be able to use HTTP headers to do
cache validation. sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
Putting squid in front of an Apache server used to be very popular - has
it fallen
at a time earlier than now, darren chamberlain wrote:
How are your files uploaded? If you use some sort of an automated system,
add a line to delete or rename or whatever the current version of the file,
so that when the URI gets called again, it is regenerated. Or, if you
generate the
The idea of a 404 handler will fit perfectly with mod_rewrite: I can
create a 404 handler that writes the page to a static file and to the
browser and a rewrite rule that redirects request of the dynamic page to
the static page.
The only problem is one I already had trying to
On 12 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The module would handle the requests before any other modules and check
in its database if there is a cached page for that request uri. If the
page is cached, it will send the cached page and return DONE. If the
page is not cached, it
So is it true that Netscape has a better performance than Apache 1.3?
Here, we are trying to move over from Netscape to Apache not so much coz of
performance issues with the web server, but more to add mod_perl/fastcgi
and cool stuff like that.
-Pramod
At 12:18 PM 7/12/00 +0200, Luis Henrique
--On Wednesday, July 12, 2000 4:14 PM -0700 Pramod Sokke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is it true that Netscape has a better performance than Apache 1.3?
Don't know. Haven't seen any benchmark data.
However, there is a need to define one's terms as well. Probably, the
Netscape (now Iplanet)
On 12-Jul-2000 Rob Tanner wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 12, 2000 4:14 PM -0700 Pramod Sokke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is it true that Netscape has a better performance than Apache 1.3?
But, scalibility in a large site depends an awful lot on all kinds of
things over and above the WEB
aaron wrote:
for example, in discussion software you have a very clear moment when you
want to invalidate specific pages: when a message arrives. now i don't want
squid or any other cache to even check w/ every request. i know darn well
when the cache is no longer valid!
I've been
31 matches
Mail list logo
