Arnaud Blancher wrote:
> Hi all
>
> i see number of version of mp1 in
> http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/CGI/
> but why only mp1 and not mp2 ?
Not entirely sure why it ended up in /CGI/ in the first place,
but you can find it here:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Apache2/mod_perl-2.0.
Hi all
i see number of version of mp1 in
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/CGI/
but why only mp1 and not mp2 ?
Cheers,
Arnaud
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, colin_e wrote:
> Thanks for the background Randy. I have seen ActiveState
> get a pretty major hammering in some quarters for their
> support of Perl , so it's interesting to get a more
> reaoned perspective.
>
> It's a real shame the mod_perl build can't be made
> hands-off,
Thanks for the background Randy. I have seen ActiveState get a pretty
major hammering
in some quarters for their support of Perl , so it's interesting to get
a more reaoned perspective.
It's a real shame the mod_perl build can't be made hands-off, as it
seems that would bring so
many Apache::*
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, colin_e wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
>
> >Due to the large volume of modules on CPAN, ActiveState uses
> >an automated build system for their ppm packages...
> >
> I guessed I was looking at the result of automated build
> tests. However I naiively thought that Apache and mod_p
Do we know anyone at netcraft who can give us figures for AP2/MP2
commercial uptake?
The main problem with netcraft and friends, is that most setups have
ServerTokens off, or running modperl as a backend so it's impossible to know.
--
__
What can I say?, an incredibly detailed and helpful response. Thanks
Randy. Bear with
me while I go through this to make sure I understand it:-
Randy Kobes wrote:
Due to the large volume of modules on CPAN, ActiveState uses
an automated build system for their ppm packages...
I guessed I was looki
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Render Web wrote:
> Randy Kobes wrote:
>
> > I've helped developed mp2 for Win32, and on that platform
> > there's an enormous gain compared to mp1 - mp1 is
> > essentially single threaded, which prevents parallel
> > processing of requests, whereas mp2 is multi-threaded. Abov
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, colin_e wrote:
> Further to this, I went looking at the specific case of
> Apache-CGI-Builder. I was hoping to use the CGI::Builder
> framework, and was disappointed to find that the Apache
> handler i/f was not available.
>
> Sure enough, the ActiveState module status list-
>
Further to this, I went looking at the specific case of
Apache-CGI-Builder. I was hoping to
use the CGI::Builder framework, and was disappointed to find that the
Apache handler i/f
was not available.
Sure enough, the ActiveState module status list-
http://ppm.activestate.com/BuildStatus/5.8.h
I have recently switched to using ActiveState perl on my production
Solaris box as well as on my
Windows machine for several reasons, including the fact that it's
considerably easier to get PPM
working under ActiveState.
However a big disappointment when I went looking for modules was the
sorry
Randy Kobes wrote:
Jayce^ wrote:
I've helped developed mp2 for Win32, and on that platform
there's an enormous gain compared to mp1 - mp1 is
essentially single threaded, which prevents parallel
processing of requests, whereas mp2 is multi-threaded. Above
that, Apache2 on Win32 also has significant
* Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-14 19:28]:
> But we want to hear all kind of opinions here on the list. We don't bite
I responded off-list too:
We use Redhat AS 3, which now ships apache2 as the standard
httpd. It's of course possible to run apache1/mp1 one way or another,
or maintain
Jayce^ wrote:
> In preparation for the upcoming release of mod_perl2, I'd
> like to prepare a list of reasons why a person/company
> would look at using mod_perl2, specifically, why upgrade
> from mod_perl1, and converting from other technologies.
>
> So with that, what reasons do you have for wan
colin_e wrote:
Not quite. I replied, but directly rather than nuking the alias with my
far-from-qualified opinions :-)
But we want to hear all kind of opinions here on the list. We don't bite
those who think their opinions are far-from-qualified. Instead we thank
them for helping us prepare an "
Not quite. I replied, but directly rather than nuking the alias with my
far-from-qualified opinions :-)
Regards: Colin
Stas Bekman wrote:
Jayce^ wrote:
In preparation for the upcoming release of mod_perl2, I'd like to
prepare a list of reasons why a person/company would look at using
mod_perl2,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Dan Brian wrote:
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:14:01 -0700
> From: Dan Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jayce^ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why MP2
>
> >> In preparati
In preparation for the upcoming release of mod_perl2, I'd like to
prepare a list of reasons why a person/company would look at using
mod_perl2, specifically, why upgrade from mod_perl1, and converting
from other technologies. So with that, what reasons do you have for
wanting MP2? What prevent
Jayce^ wrote:
In preparation for the upcoming release of mod_perl2, I'd like to prepare a
list of reasons why a person/company would look at using mod_perl2,
specifically, why upgrade from mod_perl1, and converting from other
technologies.
So with that, what reasons do you have for wanting MP
In preparation for the upcoming release of mod_perl2, I'd like to prepare a
list of reasons why a person/company would look at using mod_perl2,
specifically, why upgrade from mod_perl1, and converting from other
technologies.
So with that, what reasons do you have for wanting MP2?
What prev
20 matches
Mail list logo
