Doug MacEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, James G Smith wrote:
>
>> The current code I have uses %INC, but I wanted to write
>> something like the following:
>>
>> sub use : immediate {
>> # do stuff here if logging
>> return CORE::use(@_);
>> }
>
>you could just overri
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, James G Smith wrote:
> The current code I have uses %INC, but I wanted to write
> something like the following:
>
> sub use : immediate {
> # do stuff here if logging
> return CORE::use(@_);
> }
you could just override CORE::GLOBAL::require. you don't need to
override
On Tuesday 03 July 2001 16:46, darren chamberlain wrote:
> James G Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect:
> > The current code I have uses %INC, but I wanted to write
> > something like the following:
> >
> > sub use : immediate {
> > # do stuff here if logging
> > return COR
James G Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 07/03/2001:
> darren chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > James G Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 07/02/2001:
> > > Apache::Use
> >
> > You can get this information from %INC, can't you? e.g.:
>
>
darren chamberlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James G Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 07/02/2001:
>> How would something like this do:
>>
>> NAME
>>
>> Apache::Use
>>
>> SYNOPSIS
>>
>> use Apache::Use (Logger => DB, File => "/www/apache/logs/modules");
>>
>> DESCRI
James G Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 07/02/2001:
> How would something like this do:
>
> NAME
>
> Apache::Use
>
> SYNOPSIS
>
> use Apache::Use (Logger => DB, File => "/www/apache/logs/modules");
>
> DESCRIPTION
>
> Apache::Use will record the modules used over t
How would something like this do:
NAME
Apache::Use
SYNOPSIS
use Apache::Use (Logger => DB, File => "/www/apache/logs/modules");
DESCRIPTION
Apache::Use will record the modules used over the course of the
Perl interpreter's lifetime. If the logging module is able, the
old logs are read and
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Steven Lembark wrote:
>
>
> > Note that if they do get called this will end up using more memory than if
> > you had just loaded them during startup, since they won't be shared between
> > child processes.
>
> Original assumption is that they are called infrequently. You'll
> Note that if they do get called this will end up using more memory than if
> you had just loaded them during startup, since they won't be shared between
> child processes.
Original assumption is that they are called infrequently. You'll also find
that the amount of memory sucked up by a sin
> The minimal-module approach can be managed nicely via Autosplit, which
> puts eash sub in its own module with a stub AUTOLOAD that snags things
> into core only when they are called
Note that if they do get called this will end up using more memory than if
you had just loaded them during startu
>> memory used by the various .pm files that will be loaded numerous
>> times. I can see that grouping functions based on functionality would
>> reduce the number of .pm files in memory. However, if I go that route,
use only loads the .pm once. Multiple uses don't eat up any more resource
th
On Friday, June 29, 2001, at 07:25 , Shawn Devlin wrote:
> What advantages do I gain by grouping the functions based on
> functionality? As per my response to Mr. Worrall, one of my concerns
> with placing each function call into its own module is the amount of
> memory used by the various .p
- Original Message -
From: "Shawn Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: API Design Question
> What I like about this is I can add a new function without needing to
> disturb the existing code.
.
Good Luck
Joe Breeden
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Devlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 1:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: API Design Question
>
>
> Adam Worrall wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"SD" == Shaw
James G Smith wrote:
[snip]
>>My first thought is to break the API up so that there is a module per
>>API call (there are some 70 calls in the API). My reasoning is that I
>>can modify existing calls and add new ones without affecting everything
>>else. Does this make sense or is it better to
Adam Worrall wrote:
>>"SD" == Shawn Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
>SD> My first thought is to break the API up so that there is a
>SD> module per API call (there are some 70 calls in the API). My
>SD> reasoning is that I can modify existing calls and add new ones
>
Shawn Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I have an CGI based HTTP API (in Perl) to a database and I am now going
>to port to mod_perl. I am new to this kind of programming and I have a
>couple of questions. The platform is Linux.
First thing to keep in mind is that CGI and mod_per
17 matches
Mail list logo
