Re: [Blosxom-devel] Hello

[Andrew K. <and...@ub...>]

Gavin Carr wrote:
> I'd prefer tighter variable scopes and IO::File, say. What does PBP 
> recommend, anyone know?

Hi Gavin,

Too long since I read it, but I know he recommends staying away from 
bare filehandles. The main reason being they can't be lexically scoped, 
but that's not something to worry about in our case - we don't call into 
other packages in the IO loops.

I'd be satisfied with tighter scope and IO::File. I might submit a patch 
to use bare filehandles and won't mind if its knocked back.

>> If we needed to optimize for readability, this mtime function would be 
>> faster than File::stat:
>>
>> sub mtime {
>>      my ($filename) = @_;
>>      return (stat $filename)[9];
>> }
> 
> Yeah, I agree. I'm really just flagging that some changes that affect 
> readability will likely get more discussion than things like /o.

I'll submit a change with the mtime function.

>> I'll have to look over the plugins to see if any rely on CGI's HTML 
>> generation. I tried it and found that CGI::Simple's url() isn't giving 
>> me what blosxom expects.
> 
> Is that the url path_info arg stuff? If so, you're probably safe just to 
> skip that section for CGI::Simple versions, since it seems to be some 
> obscure (and archaic) CGI bug workaround.

That's good to know

> I agree, FCGI/mod_perl support would be great. That and caching should
> probably be largely orthogonal targets though I think?

Yes, except for the need to expire cached items in persistent environments.

Thanks for the info Gavin,

Andrew Kirkpatrick