On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> fatalsToBrowser installs a $SIG{__DIE__} handler, and so prevents you from
> properly using eval{} blocks, or nice modules like Error.pm or
> Class::Exception (or whichever way around Dave has it this week :-)
That's Exception::Class. phhhbbtt!
-dave
> "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
>>
>> use IO::File;
>> use CGI::Carp qw(carpout fatalsToBrowser carp);
Matt> Bye bye exception handling.
You mean eval{} block exception handling, or something else? W
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> > "Stas" == Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Plus, I *always* use '-w' and '-T' and get them cleanly working
> >> during development phases, although I shut them off for actual
> >> deployment.
>
> Stas> 1. You cann
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> > "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> >>
> >> use IO::File;
> >> use CGI::Carp qw(carpout fatalsToBrowser carp);
> Matt> Bye bye exception handling.
>
> Yo
> "Stas" == Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Plus, I *always* use '-w' and '-T' and get them cleanly working
>> during development phases, although I shut them off for actual
>> deployment.
Stas> 1. You cannot use -T under mod_perl, you should use
Stas>PerlT
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> > "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> >>
> >> use IO::File;
> >> use CGI::Carp qw(carpout fatalsToBrowser carp);
> Matt> Bye bye exception handling.
>
>
> > "SB" == Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SB> 2. 'PerlTaintCheck On' is a must in production!!! not development:
>
> Huh?!?!?!? It is a must always. You can't develop without it and
> then expect it to work with taint checking on at a later time.
Of course, sorry for being u
> "SB" == Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SB> 2. 'PerlTaintCheck On' is a must in production!!! not development:
Huh?!?!?!? It is a must always. You can't develop without it and
then expect it to work with taint checking on at a later time.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Plus, I *always* use '-w' and '-T' and get them cleanly working during
> development phases, although I shut them off for actual deployment.
1. You cannot use -T under mod_perl, you should use PerlTaintCheck
instead: http://perl.apache.org/guide/porting.html#Taint_Mode
2. 'PerlTaintCheck On' i
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bruce W. Hoylman wrote:
> > "Dave" == Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dave> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
> >> I wonder how do those hardcore guys that develop using handlers
> >> debug. Mhhh. They must write 'perlfect' code, I guess,
> "Dave" == Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
>> I wonder how do those hardcore guys that develop using handlers
>> debug. Mhhh. They must write 'perlfect' code, I guess, and/or
>> understand those cryptic debuggers ...
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
> > I've always considered mod_perl to be completely debugger-unfriendly.
> > That's why I write modules that I can test from a standard script, and
> > then call those modules from Embperl pages or Registry scripts.
>
>
martin langhoff wrote:
> I wonder how do those hardcore guys that develop using handlers debug.
> Mhhh. They must write 'perlfect' code, I guess, and/or understand those
> cryptic debuggers ...
>
Actually, debugging handlers is pretty easy. Just run httpd with the -X flag
to make it single process
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
> I wonder how do those hardcore guys that develop using handlers debug.
> Mhhh. They must write 'perlfect' code, I guess, and/or understand those
> cryptic debuggers ...
I just do a lot of debugging via warn statements and looking at the error
lo
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
> Perrin Harkins wrote:
> >
> > I don't know how easy it is to make it play with
> > mod_perl though. Apache::Debug normally just dumps you into the shell
> > debugger. Maybe setting an environment variable would do it.
> >
>
> I've always consid
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
> I've always considered mod_perl to be completely debugger-unfriendly.
> That's why I write modules that I can test from a standard script, and
> then call those modules from Embperl pages or Registry scripts.
Apache::Debug works. It's almost ex
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> I don't know how easy it is to make it play with
> mod_perl though. Apache::Debug normally just dumps you into the shell
> debugger. Maybe setting an environment variable would do it.
>
I've always considered mod_perl to be completely debugger-unfriendly.
Tha
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, martin langhoff wrote:
> All this talk about DDD is making me wonder if there is a suitable
> (graphical) Perl IDE that I can run on Gnome.
Last time I tried them, I found ptkdb a bit nicer than DDD, mostly because
DDD was kind of slow. I don't know how easy it is to ma
Perrin,
In fact, I've always been coding from NT machines -- for my *nix
servers, of course. Now the ActiveState people are building a
cross-platform and cross-language IDE that integrates with perldebug
nicely -- or so it seems. I'm actually starting to like it -- it's built
on top of mo
19 matches
Mail list logo
