On 3/26/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Careful with FUD, threading by definition is lighter weight than processes,
although the older Linux threads certainly didn't measure up.
We're not talking about Linux threads or apache threaded MPMs in
general here. The issue is Perl
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Further, what success have people had using threading with mod_perl2,
>> > using MPM_WORKER?
>>
>>Other than for some testing of modules I haven't found a need to use
>>either the threaded or worker MPMs.
>
> I
On 3/26/07, Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further, what success have people had using threading with mod_perl2,
> using MPM_WORKER?
Other than for some testing of modules I haven't found a need to use
either the threaded or worker MPMs.
I'd second that. The general advice is
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:06:18 -0400
Jason Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I¹m just wondering what the mod_perl intelligencia thinks about the
> choice between using mod_perl1 vs. mod_perl2
>
> Is there a reason not to go with the newer mod_perl2 (and Apache2, of
> course). Is it stable
Hi,
I¹m just wondering what the mod_perl intelligencia thinks about the choice
between using mod_perl1 vs. mod_perl2
Is there a reason not to go with the newer mod_perl2 (and Apache2, of
course). Is it stable and well accepted at this point? It seems like a
great number of people still use
