On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If anyone's got any ideas about why the proxy is having as significant an
> impact as it is, i'd love to tweak it.
There are some proxy settings in recent mod_proxy versions (apache
2.2) which you could experiment with. I haven't tri
i've changed some stuff and added fastcgi to the mix. i've given
numbers through the proxy as well as without it for all the mod_perl
examples
I've modified the scripts so that they producing the same amount of
output for each example (except cgi, which adds a content-length
header, so
On 10 Jul 2008, at 17:23, David Kaufman wrote:
I've already (finally) unlearned to do that, but I agree with Andy
that the
cost of people's ignorance (especially doing something that's worked
as
expected for so long) shouln't cause "rampant memory corruption". It
should maybe DWIM or die or
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, David Kaufman wrote:
>
> my $foo = 'bar' if $baz;
>
> I wish it would still DWIM, and by that I mean the compiler should detect
> my declaration + assignment + conditional and rewrite it for me as what I
> meant which was simply:
>
> my $foo = $baz ? 'bar' : undef;
>
I d
Hi Stephen,
"Stephen Clouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
> ...I did manage to figure out the issue today. You may or may not be
> surprised to find it was this:
>
> my $foo = "bar" if $baz;
Yikes! My bad :-) It must've been a different scary memory error that I
encountered with List::Util.
Quoting Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Note that CGI and FastCGI don't need the proxy frontend.
The only reason I did it that way was because that's how apache was
already set up on my laptop, and i didn't feel like dorking around
with it too much. I could certainly change it around
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and here's the conf (these tests were all running through a light mod_proxy
> front end too)
Note that CGI and FastCGI don't need the proxy frontend.
> I'm not sure how well you can really compare the CGI emulation numbers to
> the Pe
Andy Armstrong wrote:
It would be interesting to see how FCGI compares to those numbers.
I don't know anything about fastcgi, but i suppose i could look at that
also this evening.
Adam
I deliberately removed CGI from the script because i personally would
never use CGI in something written to be run as straight handlers, and
it obviously wouldn't make any sense to use CGI in the CGI emulations,
and then not use it in the Handler version.
Not using heredoc's shouldn't really h
On 10 Jul 2008, at 06:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure how well you can really compare the CGI emulation
numbers to the PerlHandler numbers, but personally i think the
30%ish improvement from perl-script to modperl is pretty amazing. I
wouldn't have imagined it would have been that
On 10 Jul 2008, at 05:05, Perrin Harkins wrote:
It's interesting that this didn't manifest under Perl 5.8.
And a little scary, since some people definitely have this bug and the
warning for it in 5.10 was removed before release.
Yeah, I'm thinking this thread should migrate to p5p for that r
Oh. I would also recommend three variants, based on what people often
do, what people sometimes do, and what people probably should do when
using CGI.pm, which can make a difference (just for thoroughness):
Usually done:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use CGI;
print header;
print <<"EOF";
Environment du
I appreciate this, as I'd been wondering.
But it also prompts me to.. I gotta ask...
No offence but...
Don't you know what a here_doc is?
--
Dodger
2008/7/9 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A couple of months ago i was going through slides from gozers "From CGI to
> mod_perl 2.0, Fast!" talk, which has
13 matches
Mail list logo
