You probably need to store the config data in a singleton class type thing
and make sure its passed to your subroutines, rather than depending on it
being existant in the compile-time environment...
If you do a search in the archives of this list for 'singleton' you should
find examples and furthe
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Skylos was guessing you had closure problems from doing this. However,
> if these are always globals, you will not get closures from this. What
> you need to look for is some place where you are either using $dbstr and
> friends as lexicals (my $dbstr
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Brett Randall wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2004, Skylos the Doggie wrote:
> > My solution to this problem is to pass EVERYTHING. I don't rely on
> > any subroutine to know Any data that isn't passed to it *explicitly*.
> > Using global or even local or
Ah, the closure problem.
Subroutines inside of your asp scripts behave as closures.
virtualhost A sets variables... and declares a subroutine that uses these
variables.
an access to virtualhost B accesses the same subroutine - which is already
loaded with variables per the virtualhost A in closu
How about IkonBoard?
Skylos
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations for BBS/forum software (aka message
> boards) that runs well on mod_perl? I was looking at YABB, which is
> very pretty and full-featured but the code seems really ugly (not a
> single "
You have a virtualhost on an SSL connection.
I assume, cert name is *.mydomain.tld rather than, say,
secure.mydomain.tld. There would be various people under the umbrella of
the cert, clienta.mydomain.tld, clientb.mydomain.tld, which are they
switched for reaction by the web server named based vi
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, I think I understand what you are saying but if I can clarify my
> understanding.
>
> My thought is that openining multiple browser (new process) will be a
> new and separate session. Is this correct?
I would fully expect so, and would be surpr
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ... If you
> > actually start another copy of IE, that does NOT have the same
> > non-persistant cookies, and its a different session.
>
> Is this behavior the same for both Apache::Session and CGI::Session?
May I quote myself:
> > In either case,
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can someone comment on some advantages/disadvantages?
>
> Does opening a new browser causes a new session in either of the two?
well, in IE, cookes are relevant to processes, not to windows. That is,
you can have one process with multiple windows (f
In Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Abd El-Hameed Mohammed wrote:
> Thank you all.
> OK
> Let me ask again, are there any way to store a web site bandwidth statistics
> in a file or a database
Yes.
I adapted some of the Apache::AuthDBI module into a logging hook that
interfaces to a database via dbi via custom
10 matches
Mail list logo
