It seems that at present it is not possible to build mod_perl 2.0
statically. It can only be built dynamically and loaded using
LoadModule in httpd.conf. This seems strange if the preferred method of
building is static.
What was right for 1.0 doesn't necessarily right for 2.0. mod_perl 2.0 DSO
What is the preferred method of compiling mod_perl - static or dynamic?
I have read that *static* linking is likely to load and execute faster,
but may be wasteful of resources if there are multiple proceses each
with its own copy of the common code.
It therefore seems likely that a statically
Hi there,
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, ColinB wrote:
What is the preferred method of compiling mod_perl - static or dynamic?
Static. (But that's just my opinion after years of experience and
watching people running into trouble with DSO mod_perl on this List. :)
I have read that *static* linking is
Ged == Ged Haywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ged A recent post by Randal seemed to indicate the memory saved
Ged by using a DSO mod_perl wasn't as large as one might think - check the
Ged archives.
And I've confirmed that observation at least on Solaris and OpenBSD.
You can build a static
Thanks for the comments. I guess I'll just have to stick with the
dynamically-linked mod_perl 2.0 for the time being.
I'll keep checking the mod_perl 2.0 site pages and pick up a
static-capable version when it becomes available.
Colin
__
Do you
