George Valpak wrote:
Sounds like you need 2 apaches, on separate physical servers -
I agree, the proxy approach is your best choice, and it gives other
performance benefits as well, described in the documentation.
- Perrin
s you all had sent me.
>
>I shall look for at the POE mail lists.
>
>with thanks
>rsr.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Perrin Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:08 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
erver.
I will probe all the suggestions you all had sent me.
I shall look for at the POE mail lists.
with thanks
rsr.
-Original Message-
From: Perrin Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
> > I definitely would like to get fancier as my requirement is immediate.
> > Upon finding a server that could process the requests away from mod_perl, I
> > most probably would modify mod_perl to communicate with the standalone
> > servers via sockets (and maybe maintain persistence).
Don't.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Chandrasekhar R S wrote:
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:38:57 +0530
> From: Chandrasekhar R S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Ken Y. Clark' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Query
>
> Hello Ken,
> You gav
Chandrasekhar R S wrote:
I am having a requirement as follows :
I need to execute/interpret the perl requests away from mod_perl.
Can you explain why you want to do this? Your stated requirement is
already met by CGI, FastCGI, SpeedyCGI, and a bunch of other things, but
we can't really reco
Message-
From: Ken Y. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:02 PM
To: Chandrasekhar R S
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Query
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Chandrasekhar R S wrote:
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:52:27 +0530
> From: Chandrasekhar R S <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Chandrasekhar R S wrote:
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:52:27 +0530
> From: Chandrasekhar R S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Query
>
> I am having a requirement as follows :
>
> I need to execute/interpret the perl requests away from mod_perl. Like,
>
Hi there,
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Parag R Naik wrote:
> We have installed perl 5.6
Make sure you get 5.6.1 not 5.6.0 which is buggy.
73,
Ged.
Parag R Naik wrote:
> We have installed perl 5.6 but we are
> not able to figure out how to instruct apache to use that version of
> perl(5.6
You have to re-compile mod_perl.
> Is the "our" directive used in some of files new to perl 5.6 because we
> could not find that directive in the most
Thanks but it's nothing to do with global variables I don't think
eg.
my $query = new CGI;
print $query->path_info();
works when a path info has been added to the URL but returns random
results when there isn't one.
Andrew
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Andrew Clark wrote:
> Hi, could someone PLEASE help!
>
> I am trying to write a script that if accessed through
>
> http://server/script/
>
> would produce HTML, where-as:
>
> http://server/script/wap/
>
> would produce WML.
>
>
> That all worked fine until i converted
Hi.
You can use the get() method of LWP:Simple or the LWP:UserAgent,
HTTP:Request and HTTP:Response methods. Both ways of doing it are described
on recipe 20.1 of O'Reilly's "Perl Cookbook" (Tom Christiansen and Nathan
Torkington).
good luck
./ricarDo oliveiRa
--Original Message--
From:
>> I want to make the following :
>> 1. Query a site ?
Send an HTTP GET.
>> 2. Get the results of the query in my script (we are still in Apache)
That's where you will get them. You will receive a content representing a
valid HTML document.
>> 3. Exctract the information I need ?
You will nee
> I want to make the following :
> 1. Query a site ?
> 2. Get the results of the query in my script (we are still in Apache)
> 3. Exctract the information I need ?
> 4. Fomat it and send to the browser ?
A simple registry script will do it, I don't see the catch? LWP is your
friend.
>
> Does so
15 matches
Mail list logo
