Closed now, just missed it :(
From: Fred Moyer [mailto:f...@redhotpenguin.com]
Sent: Wed 6/2/2010 12:45 PM
To: mod_perl list
Subject: [ot] Perl Survey
I just read that the Perl Survey will be closing in 24 hours so if you
get this I'd encourage you to fi
I just read that the Perl Survey will be closing in 24 hours so if you
get this I'd encourage you to fill it out. I guess it has only been
up for a little over a week, but they've gotten ~3k responses and are
closing it off tomorrow.
http://survey.perlfoundation.org/
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Joel Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/11 Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Octavian Rasnita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> However, I've seen that many Catalyst developers prefer to use fastcgi and
>>> not mod_perl
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Foo JH wrote:
>> Adam Prime wrote:
>>> The results of the mod_perl survey that Fred Moyer and I conducted can
>>> be found at the following link:
>> Interesting list. Any chance the workshop will come to Singapore? :)
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Andrew Rodland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you _do_ want to keep static file serving apart from the app code (or else
> incur the memory overhead of an app process for every file download), so you
> do
> need to go that frontend/backend route -- and it seems t
Douglas Hunter wrote:
I've been playing with the experimental event MPM for a front end
caching reverse proxy, and have been very happy with the results so far.
ditto. Witness it in use here:
http://ridecharge.com
PXY: httpd 2.2.9 w/ event mpm
Cache: X
APP: mongrel
mongrel's replacement pass
Foo JH wrote:
> Adam Prime wrote:
>> The results of the mod_perl survey that Fred Moyer and I conducted can
>> be found at the following link:
> Interesting list. Any chance the workshop will come to Singapore? :)
Not quite, but close...
http://us.apachecon.com/c/accn2008
Adam Prime wrote:
> André Warnier wrote:
>> Maybe this is the time to ask.
>> I am using Linux Debian, and getting Apache 2, perl and mod_perl 2
>> from there (apt-get).
>> I have never been quite sure which mpm the packager decided to
>> configure, as the apache2.conf contains parameters for prefo
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd really love to see a best practices kind of document, or at least a more
detailed document that described getting the light front / heavy backend
stuff working. The mp1 guide has a pretty extensive
Perrin Harkins elem.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler kineticode.com>
wrote:
> > To a certain degree, Apache/mod_perl is a victim of the success of HTTP.
> > It's fairly easy to implement a new HTTP server, so there are a lot of them,
> > and many are easy to u
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd really love to see a best practices kind of document, or at least a more
> detailed document that described getting the light front / heavy backend
> stuff working. The mp1 guide has a pretty extensive section on the vari
Perrin Harkins wrote:
It's the same with mod_perl: you can restart your backend server
without touching the frontend proxy server. It's possible that some
FastCGI implementations have a truly seamless way to do this though,
holding requests while the backend restarts. I haven't played with it
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Octavian Rasnita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I've seen that many Catalyst developers prefer to use fastcgi and
> not mod_perl, because when using fastcgi, the applications can be restarted
> without restarting the whole web server.
It's the same with mod_
- Original Message - 2:49 PM, David E. Wheeler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To a certain degree, Apache/mod_perl is a victim of the success of HTTP.
It's fairly easy to implement a new HTTP server, so there are a lot of
them,
and many are easy to use and extremely fast. If all you're inter
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To a certain degree, Apache/mod_perl is a victim of the success of HTTP. It's
>> fairly easy to implement a new HTTP server, so there are a l
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with people using other open source tools to get where they
>> want to go but the justifications they make about mod_perl being
>> heavier or slower rarel
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've said this before, but I think this is not a very rational claim.
> Network servers are actually pretty hard to get right and HTTP is no
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
I'm fine with people using other open source tools to get where they
want to go but the justifications they make about mod_perl being
heavier or slower rarely have any actual research behind them.
Yeah, I wasn't making the case for mongrel or
Hmm, this is making me want to run benchmarks! Maybe a solid set of
benchmarks would be a fun OSCON presentation next year.
++
I've loved your other comparison talks in the past and this would be a nice one. Make sure to
include the new Mojo (kind of like Mongrel but in Perl).
--
Michael
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To a certain degree, Apache/mod_perl is a victim of the success of HTTP.
> It's fairly easy to implement a new HTTP server, so there are a lot of them,
> and many are easy to use and extremely fast. If all you're intere
On Nov 10, 2008, at 3:46 AM, André Warnier wrote:
- the rate of new people coming into the community has been
declining.
The responses there are indeed a bit scary. It feels like we're a
dying breed.
I believe this is to a large extent a "marketing issue" for perl in
general, and mod_per
Adam Prime wrote:
> The results of the mod_perl survey that Fred Moyer and I conducted can
> be found at the following link:
Interesting list. Any chance the workshop will come to Singapore? :)
I am strangely excited by the potential of filters. mod_perl feels like
a generic tool that can d
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Adam Prime wrote:
André Warnier wrote:
Maybe this is the time to ask.
I am using Linux Debian, and getting Apache 2, perl and mod_perl 2 from
there (apt-get).
I have never been quite sure which mpm the packager decided to configure,
as the apache2.conf contains parameter
On Mon 10 Nov 2008, Steven Siebert wrote:
> More memory but potentially faster, correct? Since we don't have to
> spawn as many processes to accommodate a load?
Perl is a real memory hog. Byte-compiled code can become quite big.
Multiply that with the number of perl interpreters running and you'
Adam Prime wrote:
André Warnier wrote:
Maybe this is the time to ask.
I am using Linux Debian, and getting Apache 2, perl and mod_perl 2
from there (apt-get).
I have never been quite sure which mpm the packager decided to
configure, as the apache2.conf contains parameters for prefork,
pthread
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Issac Goldstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, it's not necessarily better if your memory consumption goes
> mostly to run-time data which can't be pre-generated (in which case
> worker is better for the reasons listed below, since there's no COW benefit)
T
On Mon 10 Nov 2008, André Warnier wrote:
> Ok guys, I'm nowhere as good a programmer as many people on this
> list, but a) I do have patience with beginners, b) I'm convinced and
> c) maybe I can do something in terms of documentation, if only to fix
> missing links. And d) I'd love to see my name
On Mon 10 Nov 2008, Steven Siebert wrote:
> Let me know how to get involved
How well is your C? There is a segfault waiting to be hunted down. It's
one of the nicer. It happens each time the test suite runs with worker
MPM. If interested I can give you further information.
The threading branch
André Warnier wrote:
Maybe this is the time to ask.
I am using Linux Debian, and getting Apache 2, perl and mod_perl 2
from there (apt-get).
I have never been quite sure which mpm the packager decided to
configure, as the apache2.conf contains parameters for prefork,
pthread and perchild. So,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steven Siebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More memory but potentially faster, correct? Since we don't have to
> spawn as many processes to accommodate a load?
No, there's no speed advantage to threads. In fact perl is measurably
faster if you compile it with n
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:46 AM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- A surprising number of people are running mod_perl under the worker
MPM.
What is so surprising about this ? (genuine curious question)
Because of the way perl threads use memory, you end up using
More memory but potentially faster, correct? Since we don't have to
spawn as many processes to accommodate a load? Although i don't use
worker MPM since the codebase I adopted is not thread safe, I would
investigate if it was an option. Memory is fairly cheap and, with my
web servers (without DB
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:46 AM, André Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> - A surprising number of people are running mod_perl under the worker
>>> MPM.
>
> What is so surprising about this ? (genuine curious question)
Because of the way perl threads use memory, you end up using less a
lot les
Ok guys, I'm nowhere as good a programmer as many people on this list,
but a) I do have patience with beginners, b) I'm convinced and c) maybe
I can do something in terms of documentation, if only to fix missing
links. And d) I'd love to see my name somewhere as a contributor, even
at the very
Steven Siebert wrote:
I'm relatively new to mod_perl - moving to a new job who's application
is solely written in it. This is a return to Perl for me, having
worked in PHP, Java, and .NET since Perl 4. As I'm learning to love
mod_perl and Perl in general, perhaps it's a good time for me to
cont
I'm relatively new to mod_perl - moving to a new job who's application
is solely written in it. This is a return to Perl for me, having
worked in PHP, Java, and .NET since Perl 4. As I'm learning to love
mod_perl and Perl in general, perhaps it's a good time for me to
contribute back by writing p
André Warnier wrote:
The responses there are indeed a bit scary. It feels like we're a dying
breed.
I believe this is to a large extent a "marketing issue" for perl in
general, and mod_perl by extension, with regard to the younger
programmers generation. At least in various European countries
Rolf Schaufelberger wrote:
Hi Adam,
quite interesting.
Thanks for doing all that work.
Thanks too. Interesting indeed.
Am Montag, 10. November 2008 03:59:13 schrieb Adam Prime:
The results of the mod_perl survey that Fred Moyer and I conducted can
be found at the following link:
http
Hi Adam,
quite interesting.
Thanks for doing all that work.
Am Montag, 10. November 2008 03:59:13 schrieb Adam Prime:
> The results of the mod_perl survey that Fred Moyer and I conducted can
> be found at the following link:
>
> http://kabob.ca/mod_perl_survey/
>
> Here
The results of the mod_perl survey that Fred Moyer and I conducted can
be found at the following link:
http://kabob.ca/mod_perl_survey/
Here's a quick list of obvious (though arguable) conclusions:
- a lot of people have switched to mod_perl 2, mod_perl 1 is still very
significant.
- mo
One final call for responses. It'd also be appreciated if you could
forward the survey on to your local Perl Mongers Groups to help us
reach some people that might be a little more disconnected from the
mod_perl community.
We've got over 300 responses so far, thanks to everyon
If anyone attempted to fill this out recently and got an message about
the survey being closed, that problem has been resolved and you should
be able to fill it out again.
Thanks to everyone who has filled it out.
Adam
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At the impromptu mod_perl BOF at YAPC
At the impromptu mod_perl BOF at YAPC::NA, Fred Moyer any myself
hacked together a short mod_perl survey to help identify the current
needs of mod_perl users. It was inspired by the Perl survey done last
year by Kirrily Robert. (http://perlsurvey.org). If you read dev@ and
already filled
ty of Berlin created a survey for
professional web developers and asked me to forward you the following
invitation.
http://www.plat-forms.org/survey/
So, I hope that a lot of Perl users say them, why they use Perl ... ;-)
Ciao
Alvar
-- Forwarded Message --
From: F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff wrote:
>> That's not entirely true. Debian Sarge (stable) and Ubuntu Hoary both
>> include packages for Apache 1.3.33 and Apache2 (2.0.54?). Sarge has a
>> mod_perl2 package but it's based on a late 2.0RC, though it is
>> post-rename, IIRC.
>
That's not entirely true. Debian Sarge (stable) and Ubuntu Hoary both
include packages for Apache 1.3.33 and Apache2 (2.0.54?). Sarge has a
mod_perl2 package but it's based on a late 2.0RC, though it is
post-rename, IIRC.
Actually, the Debian Stable aka Sarge has 1.999.21-1 which is
PRE
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 18:07 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> and tentatively plan to use the Debian 3.1 stable apache-perl package (Apache
> 1.33 and mod_perl 1.29).
That sounds like a good plan. There may still be issues with their
apache compile, but it's definitely better than using a pre-rel
Hi,
I don't think this changes your situation any. CGI is not really fast
enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because the
current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but couldn't
use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have poor mod_perl
support in t
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Perrin Harkins wrote:
enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because the
current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but couldn't
use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have poor mod_perl
That's not entirely true. Debian Sarge (s
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> I don't think this changes your situation any. CGI is not really
> fast enough to use, so you still need mod_perl or FastCGI. Because
> the current crop of linux distros came out before mod_perl 2 but
> couldn't use mod_perl 1 (since they are using apache 2), they have
> p
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:51:35 -0700
"Justin Luster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use Rackspace for my Unix hosting and support. They install Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux 3 and 4 that both have beta versions of Mod_Perl
> installed (ModPerl 1.99_16). Are these not recommended for use on a
> produc
Justin Luster wrote:
I use Rackspace for my Unix hosting and support. They install Red Hat
Enterprise Linux 3 and 4 that both have beta versions of Mod_Perl
installed (ModPerl 1.99_16). Are these not recommended for use on a
production server?
We do not recommand anything less then 1.9922 aka
]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:46 AM
To: David Christensen
Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: RE: *nix distro compatibility (was Re: survey)
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 22:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> If I understand it correctly, Catalyst can run under Perl/CGI, Apache/
mod_p
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 22:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> If I understand it correctly, Catalyst can run under Perl/CGI, Apache/
> mod_perl
> CGI emulation layers (Apache::Registry, FastCGI?, others?), Apache/ mod_perl,
> Apache2/ mod_perl2 CGI emulation layers (?), and Apache2/ mod_perl2. It
Perrin Harkins wrote:>?
> If you want to sell it, and don't want to spend all your time
> debugging vendor oddities, I suggest you target popular versions of
> RHEL and Fedora Core and build your own RPMs for perl, mod_perl,
> apache, and your application.
> People with ISPs where they can't instal
Jeff wrote:
> Debian provide a tested, stable environment, usually with added
> security factor. We rolled our own once to solve the libc6 2.7 memory
> bugs that hit Perl, to be bitten by intermittent and obscure
> interaction bugs (MySQL/Perl mid-query dropping db connections etc).
> We persevered
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 15:22 -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> My goal is to be able to write Apache2/ mod_perl2/ MySQL applications and then
> sell and/or give them away with the instructions "it works under *nix
> distribution X version Y.Z with packages A, B, C installed".
If you want to sell it
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 07:12 +0100, Jeff wrote:
> Debian provide a tested, stable environment, usually with added security
> factor. We rolled our own once to solve the libc6 2.7 memory bugs that
> hit Perl, to be bitten by intermittent and obscure interaction bugs
> (MySQL/Perl mid-query dropping d
Perrin Harkins wrote:
I hear you, but I think anyone who is building a serious web app is
better off compiling the important parts (apache, perl, mod_perl)
themselves. The options that the packagers choose are intended to
meet the needs of the largest cross-section of users, not to work
well for
I wrote:
>> Package: libapache2-mod-perl2
>> Versions:
>> 1.999.21-1(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stable_
>> main_binary-i386_Packages)(/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> EW!
> I'd recompile and update... using the unsupported API is going to drive y
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache showpkg libapache2-mod-perl2 | head -n 3
Package: libapache2-mod-perl2
Versions:
1.999.21-1(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stable_
main_binary-i386_Packages)(/var/lib/dpkg/status)
EW!
I'd recompile and update... using the unsupport
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> What version of mp2 comes with Sarge packages ?
> 1.9922 or higher I hope.
Thanks for your reply. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache showpkg libapache2-mod-perl2 | head -n 3
Package: libapache2-mod-perl2
Versions:
1.999.21-1(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.d
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> I hear you, but I think anyone who is building a serious web app is
> better off compiling the important parts (apache, perl, mod_perl)
> themselves. The options that the packagers choose are intended to
> meet the needs of the largest cross-section of users, not to work
>
David Christensen said:
> Also, I prefer using "binary" packages for a given *nix
> distribution
> -- it's not my goal to develop Apache2 and/or mod_perl2, I want to *use*
> them to
> build web applications.
I hear you, but I think anyone who is building a serious web app is better
off compiling t
David Christensen wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
option of using the version in Sarge, and figuring our where I differ
What version of mp2 comes with Sarge packages ?
1.9922 or higher I hope.
When I try to port my Eagle book modules to mod_perl2, I trip over the very
first step:
[EMAIL PRO
Carl Johnstone wrote:
> Sounds like a good idea, and if we point people in the right
> direction to get updated versions/backports for their distro that
> might help with the rest.
> As a Debian user I'd like to move to mod_perl2 proper, however I
> don't want to have to compile it for myself. So I
Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Carl Johnstone wrote:
>
>>> I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
>>> various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
>>> have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
>>> want to maintain my o
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to
On Thursday 01 September 2005 04:26 pm, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> If people want to start emailing in what has what, I'll at least maintain
> the list until we figure out how best to use it and where to put it.
Mandrake/Mandriva 2005LE (the last release) has perl 5.8.6, httpd 2.0.54,
mod_perl
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to maintain my own perl/mod_perl
Carl Johnstone wrote:
I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
want to maintain my own perl/mod_perl build tree - I want my distr
> I think a great first-place to start for advocacy is to work with the
> various linux/bsd/*nix distributions out there to make sure that they
> have a modern, compatible version of mod_perl 2. As a user, I don't
> want to maintain my own perl/mod_perl build tree - I want my distro to
> do the ri
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Some advocacy ideas:
I think that there are a few groups we should target:
- The programmers/net admins that are already using mod_perl, but older
versions (Macromedia is using Apache 1.3 and mod_perl 1)
- the programmers that already know perl but t
It's in backports.org's incoming directory, as of the 16th. Let's hope they
push that out soon (I don't think they've released any backports for Sarge
yet). They've also got an updated libapreq2.
http://www.backports.org/incoming/
On Sunday 28 August 2005 06:48 am, Jeff wrote:
> >> It is no
It's in backports.org's incoming directory, as of the 16th. Let's hope they
push that out soon (I don't think they've released any backports for Sarge
yet). They've also got an updated libapreq2.
http://www.backports.org/incoming/
On Sunday 28 August 2005 06:48 am, Jeff wrote:
> >> It is not
It is not even available on Testing and Unstable :(
Sure it is. Unstable has 2.0.1.
You're right - don't know how I missed that! since May!
Unfortunately I am not in a position to upgrade our servers to unstable,
and it has i386 dependencies on libc6 >= 2.3.5-1, perl >= 5.8.7 etc etc
etc ad
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Jeff wrote:
It is not even available on Testing and Unstable :(
Sure it is. Unstable has 2.0.1.
-dave
/*===
VegGuide.Orgwww.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog
==
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Adam> The people that are actually using mod_perl to any real degree
Adam> probably don't have it in their servers headers (as you said
Adam> before Perrin).
Harmful, in that when a PHB reads "Perl is dead, PHP roxors!" as
stated by otherwise knowlegable sources, we
RHEL/Centos 4 are still sitting on 1.99_16, which probably isn't helping
matters.
Debian stable: Package libapache2-mod-perl2 1.999.21-1
Which is a version BEFORE the big namespace change, and so basically not
usable.
Unfortunately Debian's three year release cycle, and 'never ever change
I'm using apache 1.3.33 and mod_perl 1.29.
I would have went apache 2 and mp 2 but I saw the mod_perl in beta
warning and wasn't sure if it was a good idea to use it in a production
environment.
Even if I had wanted to our host uses apache 1.3.33 and mod_perl 1.29 as
the default set up. On my O
we are talking about advocacy, so why not promoting mod_perl in any way if
it is possible and doesn't hurt anyone?
I also think that it would be a good idea to set an HTTP header by default
which announces mod_perl.
The winners are those who created bad but simple programs, simple
programming lang
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Frank Wiles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 19:33 PM
Subject: Re: survey
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:41 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> > Perrin, if you need some help or need someone to take it over,
> > I
From: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:47 -0400, Adam Prime x443 wrote:
> > PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
> >
> > To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
>
> We decided not to do that, since it's intrusive.
>
PHP users can decide if that HTTP hea
On 26 Aug 2005 11:43:17 -0700
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> Perhaps if mod_perl announced itself by default, but a simple
> directive turned it off? Then at least the statistics for it would be
> in the same meaningless camp as mod_php. :)
I think that's a reasonable idea
> "Adam" == Adam Prime x443 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Either way though, I think these numbers are useless for the
Adam> most part. I would guess that the vast majority of the sites
Adam> that have mod_perl or mod_php in their headers are mass hosting
Adam> providers that are running
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:56 PM
To: Adam Prime x443
Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: RE: survey
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:47 -0400, Adam Prime x443 wrote:
> PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
>
> To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
We decid
Quoting Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
> > Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > > > "Christopher H. L
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:47 -0400, Adam Prime x443 wrote:
> PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
>
> To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
We decided not to do that, since it's intrusive.
What I was asking about is whether anyone checked to see if the numbers
for other things seem t
PHP uses: X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
To effectively bypass the front end server problem.
Adam
-Original Message-
From: Perrin Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:25 PM
To: Frank Wiles
Cc: modperl@perl.apache.org
Subject: Re: survey
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:33:36 -0400
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have not had time to work on it. What it still needs is
> incorporation of a Win32 success story that I have in bits and pieces
> in several e- mails. It's not a simple job to turn it into something
> coherent. If
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:41 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> Perrin, if you need some help or need someone to take it over,
> I've got some time this weekend I could work on it. Let me know.
The document has been in the mod_perl docs subversion repository for a
while now, here:
http://svn.apache.o
Quoting Fred Moyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> > We tried last year to get a mod_perl advocacy movement going,
> but
> > not to many people were interested in helping with it.
>
> There is a mailing list just for the advocacy movement here:
>
> http://perl.apache.org/mai
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:25 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> 2) More and more sites moving to having light front-end Apache's
> that don't have mod_perl, but reverse proxy to backends that
> do.
There you go. None of the sites that I know run mod_perl, including my
own, have it in their f
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:54 -0500, Tony Clayton wrote:
> I've raised a bug on the Centos site for upgrading to mod_perl 2.0.1:
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1001
Doesn't Centos just track RHEL? I didn't think they offered any
additional packages. I believe it's Red Hat who would need to
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:32 -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised that
> "mod_perl 2 is finished?".
Where do you see these? It was announced on Slashdot, which is about as
good as it gets for reaching actual programmers.
Frank Wiles wrote:
> We tried last year to get a mod_perl advocacy movement going, but
> not to many people were interested in helping with it.
There is a mailing list just for the advocacy movement here:
http://perl.apache.org/maillist/advocacy.html
The last post was in May, right before
Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
> Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > > "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Part of it may
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised that
"mod_perl 2 is finished?".
-=Chris
Oh yeah. Last night I installed MP2 on a fresh FreeBSD5 install using
ports that used:
http://www.apache.org/dist/perl/mod_perl-2.0.1.tar.gz
This is sti
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:52 +0300
"Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think, why the number of hosts which use mod_perl is
> decreasing continuously as the following survey shows?
>
> http://perl.apache.org/outstanding/stats/netcraft.html
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0500
Tony Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:32:33 -0400
> > "Christopher H. Laco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Part of it may also be that I still see people and posts surprised
> > > t
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
