For me the following lines works fine:
use CGI::Cookie;
my $cookie = new CGI::Cookie(-name =>'NAME', -value => 'VALUE', -path =>
'/',-expires => '+1M',);
Try with use CGI::Cookie instead use CGI (error message must say 'perhaps you
forgot to load "CGI::Cookie"?').
As last chance, did you try re
I have this piece of code running AccessController.om
running using mod_perl :
--
my $cookie = CGI::Cookie->new(-name => 'sessid',
-value => {XYZ => '321312'},
-expires => '+1M');
--
This throws following error :
=
Can't locate object method "ne
Build, test and install of v1.99_12 went smoothly on WinXP home system
(Athlon 2200 laptop). Thanks for all your hard work.
-- Seth Rubin, General Partner, ThoughtProcess Technology LLC
--
Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.htm
Ben Russell wrote:
I just installed mod_perl 2 onto my Red Hat Linux 7.3 system. My system has Apache 1.3 and Apache 2.0 on it, so I ran the following command to build mod_perl (initially):
perl Makefile.PL MP_INST_APACHE2=1 MP_APXS=/etc/httpd2/bin/apxs MP_APR_CONFIG=/etc/httpd2/bin/apr-config
Wh
I just installed mod_perl 2 onto my Red Hat Linux
7.3 system. My system has Apache 1.3 and Apache 2.0 on it, so I ran the
following command to build mod_perl (initially):
perl Makefile.PL MP_INST_APACHE2=1
MP_APXS=/etc/httpd2/bin/apxs
MP_APR_CONFIG=/etc/httpd2/bin/apr-config
Which corres
When running a .pl script from browser, an error message in the apache log indicates
that the subroutines have already been defined. I assume this is because mod_perl or
apache or the server has cached this subroutine. How to keep this message from
appearing in the log?
Please see: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
--=_NextPart_000_003A_01C3C976.17CB7700
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
and please try plain text posts to this list.
Thank you.
My system has httpd 2.0
compiled with "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" . "make test" of
mod_perl has genearted a coredump with the following
backtrace.
--
(gdb) backtrace#0
0x405c1bec in ap_pcw_walk_files_config (pconf=0x809d078, s=0x80b7230
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 09:38:06AM +, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> Say I have an Apache module called Apache::Foo 1.99 and an Apache::Foo
> 2.00 for mod_perl 2. What happens when I want to release a new
> "Apache::Foo 1.99"? Apache::Foo 1.99_01?
>
> Sounds too much like "use 5.008_001' to me, i.
> OK, we have to do it ourselves, which is easy (.e.g with the patch
> below). The problem is this: all vhosts inherit PerlPostConfigHandler
> from the main server and run it. They all inherit the PerlSetVar as
> well. I'm not sure this is the wanted behavior. I suppose this is why
> Apache doesn'
I don't really maintain Apache::MP3 so much as serve as a staging
point for user-contributed patch files. Send me a patch for the
mod_perl 2.0 fixes, and it'll become part of the main branch.
Lincoln
On Monday 22 December 2003 08:53 pm, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
> > Perrin Harkin
> I still having problem with this extra.last.conf.in.
> Please, if you want and have time, take a look to included TGZ stub package
> (I included in cause is small and, maybe, make clear my problem).
> TIA
>
>
YEAH finally, a user that submits a nice sample tarball for me to just
run!!!
Speedup Apache::Registry scripts!
Not so long ago I was enquiring the mod_perl list on how to capture
Apache::RegistryNG's output by subclassing it. Thanks to the list help,
here is this new module.
MKDoc::Apache_Cache is a drop-in replacement for Apache::Registry. It
uses Cache::FileCache as a c
> moving back on-list so everyone can benefit :)
Yes, sorry.
> oh, I think I see what you mean. use t/conf/extra.last.conf.in instead of
> extra.conf.in - it will make sure your modules are loaded before the
config
> is parsed.
I still having problem with this extra.last.conf.in.
Please, if you
> Nope. That's a very bad idea. I don't want to go and rewrite all my code to
> use Apache2::Request and dozens of other modules, which work exactly the same
> as before, but their guts are different.
I would tend to agree with Jay though: I would consider Apache and
Apache2 are two different pr
Hi guys,
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >>Guys, it's Christmas.
>
> eh? so?
So you could at least mark this thread [OT].
:)
73,
Ged.
--
Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
16 matches
Mail list logo