if PerlLoadModule supplants the command table, i surmise it does the job of PerlModule as well (which i understand to be roughly the equivalent of 'use'). i'm wondering, would there ever be a reason to load a module without wanting to supplant the command table with any existing values that may be present? would it make sense at all to effectively disambiguate the two directives by making them both synonyms for PerlLoadModule?
The two are not the same, as explained here: http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/config/custom.html#Enabling_the_New_Configuration_Directives
"This [PerlLoadModule] directive is similar to PerlModule, but it require()'s the Perl module immediately, causing an early mod_perl startup."
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
-- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
