Re: [Apachetoolbox-devel] Re: mod_watch in .58: improved (bin attached)

[Kevin J. M. Jr. <km...@WP...>]

Toni Mueller wrote:

> 
> Sorry, what exactly didn't you get to compile or not?
>

Well, it needs to check for where apxs is.  I don't know why it needs 
this for a static library (I was under the impression static modules 
used EAPI), but oh well.


> Well (oh - I wrote the snippet above before reading this) I thought
> touching Perl was a no-no, and the idea of porting Apachetoolbox to
> Perl was already cancelled.

Personally, I think doing this in shell programmin is a PITA.  It works 
great on my platform, but ATB has been riddled with hacks to work on 
others.  The perl version of ATB was never canceled.  It was just I was 
the only programmer on it, and getting good grades took precedent over 
getting that out.  Every now and then I get ambitious and go back to it. 
  It's in a rather buggy state, but a somewhat workable one too.  If 
you'd like to help out, we can start it up again.  It's just adding 
patches to this existing version is much easier than rewriting the whole 
thing.

> Otherwise I'm a big fan of Perl and would
> generally like to see the Apachetoolbox in Perl. The only problem
> is maybe that Perl could be available on fewer systems out there
> because of admin ignorance or company policy.

I think you'll find that more machines have perl than bash, for 
instance.  The issue then becomes versions.  IIRC, I couldn't use all 
the scope keywords (like "our") because they were Perl 5.6 specific, and 
I'm sure there are many machines out there running 5.00x still.  The 
other thing I was trying to avoid was making people install modules (and 
I didn't want to just include them in the script, because that would 
terribly bloat things, while making the coding easier).  So, all in all, 
it's a bit ugly right now . . . :-/

-- 
Kevin