Slash

On May 2, 2005, at 1:56 PM, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:

> Now that Mod_perl 2.0 is out, is anyone working on porting slash to  
> use
> it? There are lots of good reasons to do so

like?

The problem with a port to mod_perl 2 is that there is no QUICK port
to mod_perl 2.0 due to the massive amounts of changes to the
internals. These changes would propagate to just about every area of
Slash, most notably Slash::Apache and the Slash::Apache::*.

If folks are interested in a port to mod_perl 2.0, then they should
get together and start one, I have no idea when Slashteam will have
the time to get around and work on one, themselves.

- Cliff

On 5/2/05, Shane <shane@...> wrote:
>=20
> On May 2, 2005, at 1:56 PM, William Scott Lockwood III wrote:
>=20
> > Now that Mod_perl 2.0 is out, is anyone working on porting slash to =20
> > use
> > it? There are lots of good reasons to do so
>=20
> like?
>

clifton.wood@... (Clifton Wood) writes:

> I have no idea when Slashteam will have the time to get around
> and work on one, themselves.

The only reason I know to use mod_perl 2 is that Apache 2 runs more
efficiently on Windows.  That's not a platform that Slash supports
anyway, nor that we have any plans to support.  So I don't see the
Slashteam ever putting any resources into this (unless mod_perl 1 is
end-of-lifed, which I'd hope would be far in the future).
--=20
  Jamie McCarthy
 http://mccarthy.vg/
  jamie@...

Well, some people would like to be able to add non-perl (Think PHP,
Python, not java) things to slash. This cannot be done with Apache 1.x
and Mod_Perl 1.x. I've also been told that Apache 2.x runs more
efficiently than 1.x period, not just on windows. This may not be a
big deal if you run one site on a cluster of 20 something machines,
but if you run multiple small sites on ONE big box, it's a very
important issue. Does the slash team only think about what's best for
Slashdot, or is there any thought devoted to the rest of us?

On 5/23/05, Jamie McCarthy <jamie@...> wrote:
> clifton.wood@... (Clifton Wood) writes:
>=20
> > I have no idea when Slashteam will have the time to get around
> > and work on one, themselves.
>=20
> The only reason I know to use mod_perl 2 is that Apache 2 runs more
> efficiently on Windows.  That's not a platform that Slash supports
> anyway, nor that we have any plans to support.  So I don't see the
> Slashteam ever putting any resources into this (unless mod_perl 1 is
> end-of-lifed, which I'd hope would be far in the future).
> --
>   Jamie McCarthy
>  http://mccarthy.vg/
>   jamie@...
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
> Want to be the first software developer in space?
> Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt12&alloc_id=16344&opclick
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Slashcode-general@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general
>=20


--=20
Regards,
Scott

vladinator@... (William Scott Lockwood III) writes:

> Well, some people would like to be able to add non-perl (Think
> PHP, Python, not java) things to slash. This cannot be done with
> Apache 1.x and Mod_Perl 1.x.

Sure it can, it's a little tricky though.  If anyone out there has
a script to compile apache 1.3 with mod_php and/or mod_python,
along with mod_perl, please share.  Or, Slash can work with DSO
apache as well (I used to run it on mccarthy.vg) though I don't
know if performance is as good (and I didn't keep the script I
wrote to configure it, sorry).

> I've also been told that Apache 2.x runs more efficiently than
> 1.x period, not just on windows. This may not be a big deal if
> you run one site on a cluster of 20 something machines, but if
> you run multiple small sites on ONE big box, it's a very
> important issue. Does the slash team only think about what's best
> for Slashdot, or is there any thought devoted to the rest of us?

A rewrite for apache 2 would be a lot of work.  So yeah, we're
pretty much selfish gits.
--=20
  Jamie McCarthy
 http://mccarthy.vg/
  jamie@...

On 5/24/05, Jamie McCarthy <jamie@...> wrote:
> vladinator@... (William Scott Lockwood III) writes:
>=20
> > Well, some people would like to be able to add non-perl (Think
> > PHP, Python, not java) things to slash. This cannot be done with
> > Apache 1.x and Mod_Perl 1.x.
>=20
> Sure it can, it's a little tricky though.  If anyone out there has
> a script to compile apache 1.3 with mod_php and/or mod_python,
> along with mod_perl, please share.  Or, Slash can work with DSO
> apache as well (I used to run it on mccarthy.vg) though I don't
> know if performance is as good (and I didn't keep the script I
> wrote to configure it, sorry).

Definitely tricky, and I've been able to do it with both as static or
with mod_php4 as a DSO (mod_perl+Slash works best static). If you want
me to spend some time on it, I can probably get an Apache compiled for
you that does both.

The problem is...taking the time to do it. (Read: Numerous tedious
apache compile cycles).
=20
> A rewrite for apache 2 would be a lot of work.  So yeah, we're
> pretty much selfish gits.

ROFLMAO!

- Cliff