Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 09:53 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web
>host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever
>else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl
>and possibly/probably apache as well.

Only because they were not originally compiled to offer the users full
functionality.


>I know nothing I say or do will
>change that because I understand the reasons for it.  But don't shrug off
>recompilations by saying "well everyone has to do it."

I don't understand why not.  If your Apache web server were compiled
without CGI access, wouldn't you turn around and say, well, it should have
been?  That's what I am saying here.


>> >Even though I don't know much perl, I believe that what is holding slash
>> >back from being easier to install is the fact that perl just doesn't come
>> >with all of those modules installed.
>>
>>Nope.  Many of the things required here would be additional modules or code
>>for PHP, too!  The same reasons why you  -- and pretty much everyone --
>>admits that Slash is so much more powerful than PHP* are the same reasons
>>why we have external modules required.
>>
>I don't remember saying slash was more powerful than PHP.  What I said was
>that slash was more powerful than any weblog currently written in PHP.

That is what "PHP*" means.


>I hold to the opinion that pretty stinking good slash-type weblog can be
>created in PHP, if only enough quality effort would be thrown at it.

Sure.  And to get to the Slash level of power, they would need to either
write a ton of custom code, or they would need to include/depend on
external code, which is what we do.

>And I
>think it can be done while still offering PHP-level ease of installation
>(download, untar/gz, create the db, put the settings in a config
>file/script, and run the install script.  Viola.  takes about 20 minutes
>for the whole kit and caboodle... from nothing whatsoever to now working on
>customizing it).

That sounds exactly like the Slash installation process, to me.  Takes
about 20 minutes in my experience, even installing all the modules!  Of
course, that does not include rebuilding mod_perl/Apache, which is often
not necessary anyway.


>My only point is to not misrepresent the situation of installing slash vs.
>installing anything else.

I'm not.  You brought up the other things, and I was answering to them.  I
am simply saying that Slash depends heavily on mod_perl, and if someone
does not give you access to the full capabilities of mod_perl, there's
nothing we can do about it ... unless, as I have asked before (and have not
gotten any responses), someone can go in, find out what in Slash depends on
what is not in Distribution X, so we can consider working around it.  But I
don't know what those things are, and don't have time to figure out.


>As for saying that if a PHP
>slash-quality weblog would require the same sort of installation
>complexities as slash...  well, whatever.

Which installation complexities?  The part about mod_perl?  Well, if
mod_php were hampered in its configuration, then maybe it would, I don't
know.  The part about modules?  That can be recitifed, again, by ANYONE who
wants to take the time to put the modules into a single distribution.  As
for the rest of the installation process, what you described as "PHP-level
ease" is exactly how Slash 2 installs.  You download, unpack, make, create
the DB, run the install script, do a few configs.  Done.

At 09:53 -0500 2001.04.23, Joel Kleppinger wrote:
>That's not the point.  No self-respecting shared (or even dedicated) web
>host isn't going to offer both mod_perl, mod_php, mysql and whatever
>else.  The difference is, for slash, you have to have recompile mod_perl
>and possibly/probably apache as well.

Only because they were not originally compiled to offer the users full
functionality.


>I know nothing I say or do will
>change that because I understand the reasons for it.  But don't shrug off
>recompilations by saying "well everyone has to do it."

I don't understand why not.  If your Apache web server were compiled
without CGI access, wouldn't you turn around and say, well, it should have
been?  That's what I am saying here.


>>for PHP, too!  The same reasons why you  -- and pretty much everyone --
>>admits that Slash is so much more powerful than PHP* are the same reasons
>>why we have external modules required.
>>
>I don't remember saying slash was more powerful than PHP.  What I said was
>that slash was more powerful than any weblog currently written in PHP.

Yes, that is what "PHP*" meant.


>I hold to the opinion that pretty stinking good slash-type weblog can be
>created in PHP, if only enough quality effort would be thrown at it.

Sure.  And to get to the Slash level of power, they would need to either
write a ton of custom code, or they would need to include/depend on
external code, which is what we do.  And as noted before, the additional
modules have nothing to do with ease of installation.  If someone really
had a problem with having to install extra modules, they could put out a
distribution with all of them included.


>And I
>think it can be done while still offering PHP-level ease of installation
>(download, untar/gz, create the db, put the settings in a config
>file/script, and run the install script.  Viola.  takes about 20 minutes
>for the whole kit and caboodle... from nothing whatsoever to now working on
>customizing it).

That sounds like the Slash installation process, to me.  You download,
unpack, make, create the DB, run the install script, do a few configs.
Done.  Takes about 20 minutes in my experience, even with installing all
the modules via the CPAN, which is a single command at the command line
(perl -MCPAN -e 'CPAN::Shell->install("Bundle::Slash")').  Of course, that
does not include rebuilding mod_perl/Apache, which is often not necessary
anyway.


>My only point is to not misrepresent the situation of installing slash vs.
>installing anything else.

I am simply saying that Slash depends heavily on mod_perl, and if someone
does not give you access to the full capabilities of mod_perl, there's
nothing we can do about it.  That is hardly a fault of Slash or a feature
of some other thing, it is the fault of whoever configured mod_perl to have
it hampered.

And, as I have asked before (and have not gotten any responses), someone
can go in, find out what in Slash depends on that is not in Distribution X,
so we can consider working around it.  But I don't know what those things
are that need to be worked around, and don't have available time to figure
out.


>As for saying that if a PHP
>slash-quality weblog would require the same sort of installation
>complexities as slash...  well, whatever.

Which installation complexities?  The part about mod_perl?  Well, if
mod_php were hampered in its configuration, then maybe it would, I don't
know.  The part about modules?  That can be recitifed, again, by ANYONE who
wants to take the time to put the modules into a single distribution.  As
for the rest of the installation process, what you described as "PHP-level
ease" is the same as how Slash 2 installs.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/