You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by brian moseley <bc...@maz.org> on 2002/01/12 10:35:42 UTC
kylix: rad!
have you folks seen kylix?
http://www.borland.com/kylix/
check out this white paper that describes how to create cgis
and modules for apache:
http://www.borland.com/kylix/papers/apache_development.pdf
kylix looks pretty much like ye olde application framework,
just like what many of us have built in the past, plus a gui
that allows boneheads to drag and drop application
components and right click to configure the application's
properties, resulting in an immediately deployable cgi or
dso ("rad", or "rapid application development").
competition with this product (which has some really
freaking license clauses which you can read about on
freshmeat) seems pretty easy:
1) create a suite of standard web components (such as
emailform);
2) build a gui to let you easily assemble and configure
those components (and your custom components) into an
application; and
3) provide a compiler tool that creates the cgi executable
or module dso given the inputs from #2.
the kylix netclx layer, defining actions (which are
dispatched according to the value of the path info) and page
producers (which generate html forms), is your standard mvc
design. no real innovation there, we have several to choose
from on cpan and in our own cvs repositories.
one question is: what frameworks and components to use (task
#1). you could limit the tool to one framework, say mason,
or you could support an abstraction layer (libservlet comes
to mind :) which would allow you to select mason or tt or
axkit as you prefer.
anybody interested?
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Christian Couder <Ch...@cetelem.fr>.
Hi all,
brian moseley wrote:
>
> have you folks seen kylix?
> http://www.borland.com/kylix/
And have you seen KDevelop ? http://www.kdevelop.org
and also
http://dot.kde.org/992083107/
http://dot.kde.org/986594487/
So there is already a basic Perl support in KDevelop 3 (codename
Gideon)...
Regards,
--
Christian
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Steven Lembark <le...@wrkhors.com>.
-- brian moseley <bc...@maz.org>
> many of us on this list have well-developed preferences for
> editing and debugging our code, configuring and testing our
> applications that are based on executing shell commands in a
> terminal. don't you think there are lots of well developed
> advocacy reasons for offering an alternative paradigm?
Good example would be W32 developers who want to migrate
and simply don't know their way around *NIX yet. Even if
they've taken the time to learn how the HTTP/HTML/etc end
of things function, working on NT doesn't give them very
good reflexes for dealing with *NIX. This does seem like
a good way to show people that gaining add'l control with
mod_perl doesn't have to be painful.
--
Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer
Workhorse Computing Chicago, IL 60647
+1 800 762 1582
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
> > GUI builders usually don't work for anything but the
> > most trivial websites that could be written in anything
> > and do fine.
>
> consider struts, a popular java mvc framework. it defines
> simple interfaces for things like actions and forms. does
> struts (and mvc in general) work for non trivial websites?
Struts is a framework, not a GUI builder. I'm all for frameworks, and we
have stuff on CPAN that duplicates all the significant parts of Struts.
> a struts-oriented rad tool could easily scan WEB-INF dirs to
> find action and form classes and represent them in the gui.
> the main purpose of the tool would be to assemble and
> configure those classes in order to generate a
> struts-config.xml file. it could also incorporate ide
> functionality.
Such a tool does exist for Struts, but all it does is generate/edit the
config file. Too me, this doesn't seem very labor-saving (typing in a Swing
app vs. typing in my text editor), but it might generate more interest among
certain groups. Adding some mod_perl oriented stuff to whatever the leading
Apache GUI is these days could be a good start.
> > People seem to come to mod_perl because they need more
> > performance or more control than they can get from CGI.
> > I'm not sure I want to try and draw in users who can't
> > program at all.
>
> why do you think this tool would appeal to people who can't
> program at all?
Because your post made it sound like you were talking about drag-and-drop
wizard-driven GUI builders with pre-written components (which is what Kylix
is trying to be, if I understand it correctly). There is a need for tools
to generate instant database editing apps, and some projects to build those
tools exist now. Beyond that, I think most users know enough Perl to write
actual code in a good editor.
There are already commercial Perl IDEs (aimed at CGI mostly) that have some
code generation support and a set of pre-built components. Maybe looking at
those would help to gauge developer demand for this kind of thing.
- Perrin
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by brian moseley <bc...@maz.org>.
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Well, does this product actually have any users to
> compete for?
unknown. i figure a large established software company isn't
going to spend time developing a product for a market that
doesn't exist, but you never know.
> GUI builders usually don't work for anything but the
> most trivial websites that could be written in anything
> and do fine.
consider struts, a popular java mvc framework. it defines
simple interfaces for things like actions and forms. does
struts (and mvc in general) work for non trivial websites?
a struts-oriented rad tool could easily scan WEB-INF dirs to
find action and form classes and represent them in the gui.
the main purpose of the tool would be to assemble and
configure those classes in order to generate a
struts-config.xml file. it could also incorporate ide
functionality.
> People seem to come to mod_perl because they need more
> performance or more control than they can get from CGI.
> I'm not sure I want to try and draw in users who can't
> program at all.
why do you think this tool would appeal to people who can't
program at all?
consider the popularity of java and c++ ides. do you think
it's possible that people who use those languages might
switch to perl if tools like this existed to generate
webapps in perl?
many of us on this list have well-developed preferences for
editing and debugging our code, configuring and testing our
applications that are based on executing shell commands in a
terminal. don't you think there are lots of well developed
advocacy reasons for offering an alternative paradigm?
said another way, just cos *you* don't use gui development
tools to develop modperl apps doesn't mean there aren't
heaps of people out there who'd love to do just that.
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by brian moseley <bc...@maz.org>.
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
> OK, I learned mod_perl, now where are my hot chicks! :)
no, no, you have to pledge the frat!
> I think a UI tool would help a bit, but it wouldn't
> necessarily solve the hard part of mod_perl which is the
> lack of Interpreter cleanup between invocations. PHP and
> ASP clear their variables at the start so it seems
> harder for applications to overwrite each other and
> cause weird subtle bugs.
>
> To some degree, the nature of mod_perl "feels like" it
> makes it harder.
true, altho it can be said that persistent state is part of
the nature of server programming, and whether you use a tool
to generate an app or code it all by hand, you have to learn
to exist according to that nature.
you can certainly write php code that scopes its variables
properly, uses disk- and shmem-based configuration and
persistence mechanisms rather than global variables, etc.
but you don't have to, cos php bends over backwards to make
the world a very forgiving place.
i think that best practices should be enforced by the
environment. i don't think it's inconsistent to create tools
that make a developer's job "easier" (enabling him to speed
up the implementation lifecycle) and that also enforce best
practices.
> A point to note... even though we give out free Perl and
> Java applications, we feel that even our own config
> files are large and therefore daunting for beginners so
> we have been doing R&D to come up with a web interface
> to create config files for MVC based web apps. A UI is
> not what we want because we'd like people to go through
> the wizard and then be able to download a pre-packaged
> app.
web and desktop uis are all guis, right? hell, emacs jde is
an ide/gui. it shouldn't be a huge technical challenge to
design an application that can have multiple types of gui
layered onto it. i built my last little project exactly that
way - with a web interface and a command line interface. mvc
helped immensely with that.
> I Think making things "easier" is always a "noble"
> effort but it's not always clear until you try, what is
> truly easier. 1 size doesn't usually fit all. Many peple
> like IDEs, many people hate them...
yah. i don't really feel very comfortable in them myself. i
wasn't suggesting that i was going to build this tool
myself; i just thought i'd share the idea. because given the
number of gui tools that exist, and the testimony of users,
it's clear that at last some people find those tools useful.
subject line aside, the idea/opinion that really got me in
this thread was "mod_perl is not for less/non experienced
programmers". that may be the reality today, but it doesn't
have to be by nature.
it's like we were talking about on #modperl yesterday.
somebody wondered why php applications tend to sport
prettier/cleaner/better ui's than perl applications. i think
it's cos the php community is more design oriented,
specifically because the environment is so conducive to less
experienced programmers getting stuff done.
if you were a designer sitting down to do your first
application, which would you choose - php or
perl+mason/tt/whatever?
you can go to php.net and see a comprehensive searchable
manual of all core apis. you don't have to install anything
to be able to send an email or connect to a database. you
don't have to look at many web sites - just one (maybe two,
if you consult phpbuilder for tips and tricks). you can
store data in a web session with 2 function calls. you can
reasonably make a dynamic page within 30 seconds of your
admin telling you that php is installed in the web server.
contrast that with what's available for mod_perl, mason, tt,
etc. all well documented, but at a lower level technically.
you have to ask your admin to install DBI and MIME-tools (or
figure out how to install them into your home dir). you have
to figure out how to cause registry scripts or mason pages
to be executed (and you have to install mason). you have to
write wrapper code to rig up a session framework (and you
have to install session modules). etc.
the bar is higher for mod_perl and friends. you have to read
and understand many more concepts in order to make a hello
world web page. you can't be a 9th level designer/1st level
coder.
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Gunther Birznieks <gu...@extropia.com>.
At 06:16 AM 1/14/2002, brian moseley wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> >
> > > Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
> > > builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
> > > that could be written in anything and do fine. People seem to come to
> > > mod_perl because they need more performance or more control than they
> > > can get from CGI.
> >
> > Agree.
>
>you know, i think it's this attitude, or a more insidious
>version of it, that keeps mod_perl from being as ubiquitous
>as php. it's like having to pledge the frat before you can
>get the hot chicks. i, for one, would like to see more
>people getting interested in making it easy for people who
>don't practice black magic to take advantage of mod_perl.
OK, I learned mod_perl, now where are my hot chicks! :)
I think a UI tool would help a bit, but it wouldn't necessarily solve the
hard part of mod_perl which is the lack of Interpreter cleanup between
invocations. PHP and ASP clear their variables at the start so it seems
harder for applications to overwrite each other and cause weird subtle bugs.
I guess there is PerlRun (but it's not true cleanup) or PerlRestart, but
that's really slow
To some degree, the nature of mod_perl "feels like" it makes it harder.
A UI would help though especially if it had a debugger that learned when
attached to a given httpd process what variables were being preserved and
reused over and over again... so you could trace those things down.
A point to note... even though we give out free Perl and Java applications,
we feel that even our own config files are large and therefore daunting for
beginners so we have been doing R&D to come up with a web interface to
create config files for MVC based web apps. A UI is not what we want
because we'd like people to go through the wizard and then be able to
download a pre-packaged app.
I Think making things "easier" is always a "noble" effort but it's not
always clear until you try, what is truly easier. 1 size doesn't usually
fit all. Many peple like IDEs, many people hate them...
Later,
Gunther
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Gunther Birznieks <gu...@extropia.com>.
At 10:19 PM 1/15/2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Mark Maunder wrote:
>
> > Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> > technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to
> supporting it
> > and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content
> of the
> > main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> > questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> > getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> > noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have
> been
> > posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
> >
> > thoughts?
>
>Can we argue about which template system is best there? I'd join if we
>could. ;-)
Why because then you'd argue on behalf of AxKit? :)
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Mark Maunder <ma...@swiftcamel.com>.
Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> > technology more accessable?
>
> Attempts to create additional lists in the past have mostly failed.
> Conversation on them dies down, and everyone comes back here (and most
> people on the splinter list were on both lists anyway).
>
Were the other lists part of perl.apache.org? I think it's doomed to fail unless
it falls under the official mod_perl banner.
>
> > I think the content of the
> > main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> > questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> > getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts.
>
> We get those all the time here. I think it's more likely that many people
> don't want to subscribe to a list with this much traffic.
>
> I don't think a new list is likely to succeed, but I'm not opposed if you
> want to try it. I would be opposed to any attempt to ban newbie questions
> from this list. I asked a lot of incredibly stupid questions when I was
> getting started, and got answers from people with a real depth of knowledge.
> Others deserve the same chance.
I don't think the list should be set up on a server outside perl.apache.org -
that would definitely cause fragmentation (as Geoff suggested). I also totally
agree with keeping newbies on the current list. It was a real trip for me to get
responses from the authors of my books when I started out. But I also remember
the difficulty of grasping the concepts of a persistent perl engine (although
that might reflect on me personally!) and the embarrassment of asking such
godlike beings.
Perhaps we could set up a trial list as modperl-beginners@apache.org for a
couple of months. I assume this is administered by Covalent and would need Doug
and everyone else's buy in. So I guess allot more debate/discussion on the issue
is needed?
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
> Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> technology more accessable?
Attempts to create additional lists in the past have mostly failed.
Conversation on them dies down, and everyone comes back here (and most
people on the splinter list were on both lists anyway).
> I think the content of the
> main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts.
We get those all the time here. I think it's more likely that many people
don't want to subscribe to a list with this much traffic.
I don't think a new list is likely to succeed, but I'm not opposed if you
want to try it. I would be opposed to any attempt to ban newbie questions
from this list. I asked a lot of incredibly stupid questions when I was
getting started, and got answers from people with a real depth of knowledge.
Others deserve the same chance.
- Perrin
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
John Michael wrote:
>
> Hooray for another mod-perl book. Can't wait.
> I guess it will be available from Amazon.
> Do you know if it can be ordered early.
yes, it can.
the book can be pre-ordered from amazon from our website:
http://www.modperlcookbook.org/
the advantage in using our website is that we get some additional
funds form amazon for the referral, which helps with keeping the
website going.
I've been told that amazon should have the book in their warehouses on
the 28th (or thereabouts). I've ordered a copy from amazon myself, so
when I have it in my hands, I'll announce it officially.
There are also some online chapters on the site, including chapter 1
which outlines installation procedures.
http://www.modperlcookbook.org/chapters/ch01.pdf
we put that one there not because it was the most interesting, but
because we thought that the would couldn't possibly have enough
documentation on installing mod_perl, and what we did complements the
guide nicely.
--Geoff
(trying not to be too self-promoting)
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by John Michael <jo...@acadiacom.net>.
Hooray for another mod-perl book. Can't wait.
I guess it will be available from Amazon.
Do you know if it can be ordered early.
John Michael
>
> personally, I've given considerable thought to another list. The
> mod_perl Developer's Cookbook (http://www.modperlcookbook.org/) is now
> 2 weeks away from the shelves. I've debated myself on a few occasions
> as to whether we should support a mailing list for the book (assuming
> that the book will spawn a new interest and increase traffic to the
> main mod_perl list as folks try out the ideas contained within).
> granted, it may be unfair to add traffic to the list with questions
> that are specific to our book...
>
>
> --Geoff
>
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Mark Maunder <ma...@swiftcamel.com>.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
> Mark Maunder wrote:
> >
> > Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> > technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting it
> > and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of the
> > main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> > questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> > getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> > noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have been
> > posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
> >
> > thoughts?
>
> well, here are some thoughts that have been voiced in the past against
> a new list:
>
> - another list is another list, and everyone is taxed already
I can spare some time, and so can a few other intermediate developers I know. (But I
hear ya!)
> - another list fragments the community
Perl itself has 203 lists and it's thriving. At present we only have 3 discussion
lists that are mod_perl specific (besides the cvs lists and embperl, asp, test,
mason etc.) and the other two are advocacy and core dev. Admittedly we're alot
smaller than the entire perl community, but I think an entry level list would add a
great onramp.
> - it's nice to have newbies and advanced users mingle
And they still will on both lists I'm sure. I just notice the amount of traffic
generated on the perl beginners list and there must be a reason for it and I think
it's because it has the word beginners in the name makes it really accessable for
anyone - it lets you know you're not going to get flamed, or get a terse response.
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
> Oh, this reminds me. Would it not be nice to have some kind of cheat
> sheet where people can look up where to look up issues. For example, for
> each of the common topics have a simple list containing URLs into the
> guide, page numbers in the eagle book, links to articles, etc.
The Guide was originally an attempt to do that. Between the Guide and a
new, more informative web site design, I think this will be mostly covered.
- Perrin
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
>
> I hear you. The Guide index is a start, you can grab the Guide source
> and grep it, I still do that occasionally, you can get yourself on the
> reviewers' list of Stas' book (while we're plugging books, Geoff:)
:)
yes, I never meant to discount the guide. in fact, we list the print
version as a resource in our book and on our website. I look forward
to seeing that on my bookshelf/using it as well when it arrives in
print.
--Geoff
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
>
>>Does such a "cheat sheet" already exist and have I just missed it?
> I hear you. The Guide index is a start, you can grab the Guide source
> and grep it, I still do that occasionally,
The guide's search engines hosted by Randy and Vivek are the key to the
successful utilization of the guide. I use these myself. Start here:
http://perl.apache.org/guide/#search
Also remember that James Smith is working on the knowledge base project,
which should make knowledge navigation and search a piece of cake. If
you want to help James to get things working sooner offer your help:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/perlkb/
The new modperl documentation site is in cooking, join
docs-dev-subscribe@perl.apache.org to smell the new odours and help us
cutting/spicing/mixing/orranging the dishes.
> But it looks from the volume of response that the case for a beginners
> list is overwhelming. I'll be there.
just give it a try, it'll either succeed or not. But if you do create
it, please avoid cross-posting with modperl list. Or why would you
create the other list in first place.
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Ged Haywood <ge...@www2.jubileegroup.co.uk>.
Hi there,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> Does such a "cheat sheet" already exist and have I just missed it?
I think it's called Google.
I hear you. The Guide index is a start, you can grab the Guide source
and grep it, I still do that occasionally, you can get yourself on the
reviewers' list of Stas' book (while we're plugging books, Geoff:) and
then you can grep the source of that too. There are archives of the
mod_perl list itself but I have had little success with searching them
personally I'm afraid.
Maybe we should have a new [TAG], something like
[Where-The-Devil-Did-I-See-That]
But it looks from the volume of response that the case for a beginners
list is overwhelming. I'll be there.
73,
Ged.
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Mark Fowler <ma...@twoshortplanks.com>.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> I don't think there has ever been a lack of RTFM-type questions here.
> and they are almost always answered without prejudice or harsh words.
> at least within the past few years...
I'm fairly new to the list, and things seem okayish to me in terms of
response in terms of people not responding with prejudice or harsh words.
However, they quality of the responses are not as good as they could
possibly be - not because the people answering aren't knowledgeable - it's
because they know too much - that the answers are too complete or too
useful.
You know the phrase, "they've forgotten more than you know." Well this is
true. When people are asking questions it'd be great instead of quickly
explaining the basics and telling them to look at the guide, or go read
this, that we gave them the exact URL of something that tells them, for
example, the problem relating with persistent data, or which man page
covers such issues as CGI %ENV emulation. Of course, most people who
answer can't remember where this is off of the top of their heads as they
haven't looked at it months - they don't need to - they're the kind of
people that know the information already.
By creating a beginners list, people can get used to answering such
beginners questions and supplying clearly and precisely just the
information the beginners need, no more information (which can confuse the
issue) and with greater speed and efficiency.
In other words I think it would be a good thing.
Oh, this reminds me. Would it not be nice to have some kind of cheat
sheet where people can look up where to look up issues. For example, for
each of the common topics have a simple list containing URLs into the
guide, page numbers in the eagle book, links to articles, etc. The
important thing about this list is that it would not have any actual
information in it - only pointers to more information.
Does such a "cheat sheet" already exist and have I just missed it?
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ mark@twoshortplanks.com
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Benoit Caron wrote:
>
> I see at least two reason to create a beginners list :
>
> 1) Newbies (and not-so-newbies) can ask with more confidence their
> RTFM/STFW questions. That help modperl not looking to much like the hardest
> of the apache modules.
I don't think there has ever been a lack of RTFM-type questions here.
and they are almost always answered without prejudice or harsh words.
at least within the past few years...
>
> 2) It help distribute the "load" of support from the gurus in here : I very
> rarely find myself confident enough in my answers to respond to "real-hard"
> question besides people like Matt, Gunther, Doug, Randall, etc.. But on a
> newbie list, I'd be happy to help as a kind of "Level 1 support" and
> answers those simple-to-intermediate questions.
this is perhaps a result of the attitude of other mailings lists. I
certainly understand it, but I always think of this list as a place to
help others and be helped. if you try to help someone and you're
wrong, others will step in to set things straight - very rarely (if
ever) will they be mean or condescending. I've never felt the
pressure of 'not wanting to anger the gods' with a stupid question
here, even when I was a newbie myself...
--Geoff
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Benoit Caron <be...@netgraphe.com>.
I see at least two reason to create a beginners list :
1) Newbies (and not-so-newbies) can ask with more confidence their
RTFM/STFW questions. That help modperl not looking to much like the hardest
of the apache modules.
2) It help distribute the "load" of support from the gurus in here : I very
rarely find myself confident enough in my answers to respond to "real-hard"
question besides people like Matt, Gunther, Doug, Randall, etc.. But on a
newbie list, I'd be happy to help as a kind of "Level 1 support" and
answers those simple-to-intermediate questions.
Then, if a question asked on the beginners list find no answer, it can be
"upgrade" to the regular list, where the discussion can be more about
strategy, big-hard-problems, etc.
Just my 0.02 CAN$ (or my 0.012 US$)
At 09:31 1/15/2002 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>Mark Maunder wrote:
> >
> > Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> > technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to
> supporting it
> > and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content
> of the
> > main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> > questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> > getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> > noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have
> been
> > posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
> >
> > thoughts?
>
>well, here are some thoughts that have been voiced in the past against
>a new list:
>
> - another list is another list, and everyone is taxed already
> - another list fragments the community
> - it's nice to have newbies and advanced users mingle
>
>personally, I've given considerable thought to another list. The
>mod_perl Developer's Cookbook (http://www.modperlcookbook.org/) is now
>2 weeks away from the shelves. I've debated myself on a few occasions
>as to whether we should support a mailing list for the book (assuming
>that the book will spawn a new interest and increase traffic to the
>main mod_perl list as folks try out the ideas contained within).
>granted, it may be unfair to add traffic to the list with questions
>that are specific to our book...
>
>in the end, I think I ended in the no-new-list camp hoping that, as a
>community, we would better flourish with increased users and new ideas
>if we were all gathered in a single place. but the decision of the
>masses can decide...
>
>--Geoff
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Mark Maunder wrote:
>
> Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting it
> and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of the
> main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have been
> posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
>
> thoughts?
well, here are some thoughts that have been voiced in the past against
a new list:
- another list is another list, and everyone is taxed already
- another list fragments the community
- it's nice to have newbies and advanced users mingle
personally, I've given considerable thought to another list. The
mod_perl Developer's Cookbook (http://www.modperlcookbook.org/) is now
2 weeks away from the shelves. I've debated myself on a few occasions
as to whether we should support a mailing list for the book (assuming
that the book will spawn a new interest and increase traffic to the
main mod_perl list as folks try out the ideas contained within).
granted, it may be unfair to add traffic to the list with questions
that are specific to our book...
in the end, I think I ended in the no-new-list camp hoping that, as a
community, we would better flourish with increased users and new ideas
if we were all gathered in a single place. but the decision of the
masses can decide...
--Geoff
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by "Erich L. Markert" <em...@netscape.net>.
mark@swiftcamel.com wrote:
>Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
>technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting it
>
In theory it would be great for beginners. However, as you probably
already have witnessed adding another list just confuses people and they
will end up posting questions on the wrong list or both lists.
I think the added traffic would be annoying.
What would be awesome is if you dedicated the time you were going to
apply towards a beginner's list and handle beginner questions on
modperl? Sort of like a beginner's modperl champion
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Hans Poo <ha...@integranet.cl>.
El Mar 15 Ene 2002 11:08, Mark Maunder escribió:
> Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting
> it and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content
> of the main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting
> started' type questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and
> compilation issues and getting up and running with some basic handlers or
> registry scripts. I've noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list
> that should/could have been posted to mod_perl, but may have been
> considered too newbie.
>
> thoughts?
First of all i want to say: it's a good idea
I think there area some important points point here in this discussion:
People will leave lists if they don't understand the 90% of the posts.
Maybe people like me, (not very experienced) may have a place to give a hand
back to the very begginers.
Monosilabic respondes as "read the guide" or "go to the eagle book" are
sometimes found in this list. I'am not saying this respones are given with
bad intentions, but obviously make people afraid to post , moreover, maybe
these responses are the rigth answer for the moment.
To last, smart search engines can make some magic putting the lists togheter
if we like.
Hans Poo
Re: Re[2]: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Bill Moseley <mo...@hank.org>.
At 07:02 PM 01/15/02 +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> The mod_perl list is fantastic. Maybe because it hasn't had explosive
>> growth (has it?) that has made it such a nice neighborhood.
>
>According to Ask, there are more people on this list than on any other
>perl mailing list period [1].
Well, then, we have such nice neighbors I didn't even notice the
neighborhood change!
>> Getting back to this message: This list is really good with off topic
>> questions, in general. I know there's IRC, but I'd like a list that's more
>> of a pub or cafe-style where mod_perl people hang out. A good place for
>> somewhat OT questions that a mod_perl programmer might have, but might also
>> not be directly mod_perl related. A place to ask "I'm thinking of doing it
>> this way, anyone see a better way before I waste my time on it?" kind of
>> question.
>
>Is there a reason, asside from impedance, that we can't discuss those
>things here? Or do you mean general perl stuff as well as mod_perl? How
>about perlmonks or we could set up a web based bulletin board on
>take23.org if you wanted...
Yes. I always have questions that I would not ask on the list because they
are to OT, but also I know that mod_perl people would have done something
similar. On-line BOF, I guess. OTOH, people might miss out a lot of
useful ideas if there was a separate list.
This is a dangerous statement, so I'll say *my* opinion about perl monks
and other bulletin boards (non-email based lists) is that it's too hard
(for me) to check them. Email lists are great (for me) because I see when
something comes in.
I also know some people love IRC, but it's kind of the same issue for me.
Email lists are the right mix. I don't mind my wife walking in the office
to tell me something once in a while, but having her stand there and talk
all day, well...
>[1] Actually that may have been overtaken now by the perl-beginners list.
Is that a reason to not do a modperl-beginners list? ;)
--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley@hank.org
Re: Re[2]: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Thomas Eibner <th...@stderr.net>.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:03:41AM -0800, brian moseley wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Bill Moseley wrote:
>
> > I know there's IRC, but I'd like a list that's more of a
> > pub or cafe-style where mod_perl people hang out. A
> > good place for somewhat OT questions that a mod_perl
> > programmer might have, but might also not be directly
> > mod_perl related. A place to ask "I'm thinking of doing
> > it this way, anyone see a better way before I waste my
> > time on it?" kind of question.
>
> fwiw, #modperl is actually really good for this.
I second that. It was actually what I thought of when I heard the
description of what Bill wanted. It doesn't get more pub/cafe/casual
style than IRC.
Again: #modperl on irc.rhizomatic.net
--
Thomas Eibner <http://thomas.eibner.dk/> DnsZone <http://dnszone.org/>
mod_pointer <http://stderr.net/mod_pointer>
Re: Re[2]: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Bill Moseley wrote:
> At 05:25 PM 01/15/02 +0100, C.Hauser - IT assistance GmbH wrote:
> >On the other hand, as I quit using standard cgi, I want to post
> >application relevant questions to people using the same environment.
> >"Which module is better?", "How do you solved this?".
>
> Yes!
>
> The mod_perl list is fantastic. Maybe because it hasn't had explosive
> growth (has it?) that has made it such a nice neighborhood.
According to Ask, there are more people on this list than on any other
perl mailing list period [1].
> I feel newbies are welcome on this list, and deserve help form the
> experts as most of the experts probably can think of great help they
> got when first starting out.
>
> What I think would help is if the ezmlm welcome message offered a mod_perl
> tutorial (or link to one) that should be reviewed before posting:
>
> What mod_perl is, how to build mod_perl, how to run an Apache::Registry
> script, how to make a hello world handler, and how to debug and where (and
> what) to ask on the mod_perl list.
I'd actually like to see more (any?) of these type of things written up,
and mailed to me so they can go on Take23.org. I just haven't seen anyone
wanting to write that stuff. I'd certainly welcome something from an
unknown name, and I'd be willing to edit it and correct any mistakes for
whoever.
> Getting back to this message: This list is really good with off topic
> questions, in general. I know there's IRC, but I'd like a list that's more
> of a pub or cafe-style where mod_perl people hang out. A good place for
> somewhat OT questions that a mod_perl programmer might have, but might also
> not be directly mod_perl related. A place to ask "I'm thinking of doing it
> this way, anyone see a better way before I waste my time on it?" kind of
> question.
>
> Or does such a list already exist?
Is there a reason, asside from impedance, that we can't discuss those
things here? Or do you mean general perl stuff as well as mod_perl? How
about perlmonks or we could set up a web based bulletin board on
take23.org if you wanted...
[1] Actually that may have been overtaken now by the perl-beginners list.
--
<!-- Matt -->
<:->Get a smart net</:->
Re: Re[2]: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by brian moseley <bc...@maz.org>.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Bill Moseley wrote:
> I know there's IRC, but I'd like a list that's more of a
> pub or cafe-style where mod_perl people hang out. A
> good place for somewhat OT questions that a mod_perl
> programmer might have, but might also not be directly
> mod_perl related. A place to ask "I'm thinking of doing
> it this way, anyone see a better way before I waste my
> time on it?" kind of question.
fwiw, #modperl is actually really good for this.
Re: Re[2]: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Bill Moseley <mo...@hank.org>.
At 05:25 PM 01/15/02 +0100, C.Hauser - IT assistance GmbH wrote:
>On the other hand, as I quit using standard cgi, I want to post
>application relevant questions to people using the same environment.
>"Which module is better?", "How do you solved this?".
Yes!
The mod_perl list is fantastic. Maybe because it hasn't had explosive
growth (has it?) that has made it such a nice neighborhood.
I feel newbies are welcome on this list, and deserve help form the experts
as most of the experts probably can think of great help they got when first
starting out.
What I think would help is if the ezmlm welcome message offered a mod_perl
tutorial (or link to one) that should be reviewed before posting:
What mod_perl is, how to build mod_perl, how to run an Apache::Registry
script, how to make a hello world handler, and how to debug and where (and
what) to ask on the mod_perl list.
Getting back to this message: This list is really good with off topic
questions, in general. I know there's IRC, but I'd like a list that's more
of a pub or cafe-style where mod_perl people hang out. A good place for
somewhat OT questions that a mod_perl programmer might have, but might also
not be directly mod_perl related. A place to ask "I'm thinking of doing it
this way, anyone see a better way before I waste my time on it?" kind of
question.
Or does such a list already exist?
--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley@hank.org
Re[2]: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by "C.Hauser - IT assistance GmbH" <c....@itassistance.ch>.
I was/am a mod_perl newbie - the basic struggle was not the concept of
mod_perl itself but more the templating systems and reusable codes, the
modules, especially the Apache::*.
After I made a decision on the templating system, I try to address
output relevant questions into the list of the templating system.
On the other hand, as I quit using standard cgi, I want to post
application relevant questions to people using the same environment.
"Which module is better?", "How do you solved this?".
As I'm an experienced Perl programmer I would have chosen the
standard list, not the beginner. This might be different, if I would
have recently started Perl coming from PHP, VBS or nowhere, I would have
choosen mod_perl as it is said to be the serious way to build
stable and professional web services.
So I would mix two problems, the Perl and the Apache (or even DBI)
relevant ones. Maybe it might be OK to have a list for Perl and
mod_perl beginner ... just a thought.
BR Christian
========== beginn original ==========
Date: Dienstag, 15. Januar 2002, 16:32:58
Subject: mod_perl beginners list
I'm very interested in developing a strategy to lower the entry bar to build
mod_perl-based apps. I have done a lot of work to this end and shall be
doing
more. I would love to band together with others to actually deliver
something!
J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Maunder" <ma...@swiftcamel.com>
To: <mo...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: mod_perl beginners list
> Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting
it
> and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of
the
> main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have
been
> posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
>
> thoughts?
>
>
>
>
=========== end original ============
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Jay Lawrence <Ja...@Lawrence.Net>.
I'm very interested in developing a strategy to lower the entry bar to build
mod_perl-based apps. I have done a lot of work to this end and shall be
doing
more. I would love to band together with others to actually deliver
something!
J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Maunder" <ma...@swiftcamel.com>
To: <mo...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: mod_perl beginners list
> Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting
it
> and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of
the
> main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have
been
> posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
>
> thoughts?
>
>
>
>
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Jon Robison <jr...@uniphied.com>.
Yeah! And can we also have a vi vs. emacs fight too?
<-- snorting with childish fits and giggles.
I'd be there with bells on, as I am one of those "newbies" who STILL has
trouble figuring out when to return FORBIDDEN, DONE or OK.!
--Jon Robison
P.S. We should add Komodo to that editor fight - I hate things that
started in the Windows world, but for an on-the-fly "hey your syntax
sucks" tell-you-its-wrong-as-you-write-it editor, it's pretty good.
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Mark Maunder wrote:
>
> > Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> > technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting it
> > and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of the
> > main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> > questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> > getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> > noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have been
> > posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
> >
> > thoughts?
>
> Can we argue about which template system is best there? I'd join if we
> could. ;-)
>
> --
> <!-- Matt -->
> <:->Get a smart net</:->
Re: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Mark Maunder wrote:
> Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
> technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting it
> and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of the
> main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
> questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
> getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
> noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have been
> posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
>
> thoughts?
Can we argue about which template system is best there? I'd join if we
could. ;-)
--
<!-- Matt -->
<:->Get a smart net</:->
RE: mod_perl beginners list
Posted by "Jonathan M. Hollin" <ne...@digital-word.com>.
:: Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list
:: to make the technology more accessable? I could dedicate
:: some of my time to supporting it and perhaps we can round up
:: a few other volunteers. I think the content of the main list
:: may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started'
:: type questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and
:: compilation issues and getting up and running with some
:: basic handlers or registry scripts. I've noticed alot of
:: posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have been
:: posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
:: thoughts?
Brilliant idea. I'm right behind and will do anything I can to help.
Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/
mod_perl beginners list
Posted by Mark Maunder <ma...@swiftcamel.com>.
Is there any interest in creating a mod_perl beginners list to make the
technology more accessable? I could dedicate some of my time to supporting it
and perhaps we can round up a few other volunteers. I think the content of the
main list may intimidate newcomers into not posting 'getting started' type
questions like 'is there a module that does X?' and compilation issues and
getting up and running with some basic handlers or registry scripts. I've
noticed alot of posts on the perl beginners list that should/could have been
posted to mod_perl, but may have been considered too newbie.
thoughts?
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Sam Tregar <sa...@tregar.com>.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, brian moseley wrote:
> altho kylix was discussed in the first post of the thread,
> my actual reply to you stood on its own as a condemnation of
> a general cliquish attitude.
Oh, consider me properly chastened then. BTW - kylix is actually the
subject of this thread, supposedly. I didn't think addressing it
directly was too out of bounds! And Kylix *is* aimed at non-programmers,
or at least it was when it was Delphi.
> but microsoft visual studio blah blah .net blah blah is
> quite popular, isn't it?
Have you used MS "visual" studio? There isn't much "visual" about it.
In my experience it's pretty much on par with the various C/C++ IDE's
around for Linux already. All of which are pretty close to useless, IMO.
People use MS Visual Studio because they have to. Same reason they'll use
.NET. If there's anything Borland has proved it's that providing a better
development environment than Microsoft doesn't get you more developers.
Kylix is, as I understand it, something much closer to original Delphi aim
of programming without coding. I'm not saying it wouldn't be neat if you
could do Kylix for Perl. I'm just saying I don't think it would be a
fantastic success. So, yeah, I'm agreeing with Perrin, but I don't think
that makes me some kind of horrible elitist.
-sam
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by brian moseley <bc...@maz.org>.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Ah, gimme a break. You want to convince me that
> non-programmers can find their way to the party with a
> fancy GUI? Go right ahead! I'll let you wear the
> moose-hat for a whole week if you succeed. However,
> that doesn't mean I'm going to stay quiet about just how
> unlikely I think it is!
you apparently didn't read my second-to-last message in this
thread, in which i explained that non-programmers are not
the subject of the original idea.
altho kylix was discussed in the first post of the thread,
my actual reply to you stood on its own as a condemnation of
a general cliquish attitude.
> Kylix is not a new idea - it's an old, mostly
> unsuccessful one ported to Linux by an old and mostly
> unsuccessful company. If it had worked then we'd all be
> out of business and most commercial apps would be
> "written" by business majors with Delphi.
but microsoft visual studio blah blah .net blah blah is
quite popular, isn't it? and many commercial apps /are/
written with that toolset, aren't they?
once again: give people tools they are comfortable with, and
they are more likely to try alternative technologies and
perhaps find their way to the party.
maybe if i said "maybe activestate could make komodo
generate cgis and mod_perl modules", you'd find the idea
more interesting. cos you know, people actually write code
with komodo.
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Sam Tregar <sa...@tregar.com>.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, brian moseley wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> >
> > Agree.
>
> you know, i think it's this attitude, or a more insidious
> version of it, that keeps mod_perl from being as ubiquitous
> as php. it's like having to pledge the frat before you can
> get the hot chicks. i, for one, would like to see more
> people getting interested in making it easy for people who
> don't practice black magic to take advantage of mod_perl.
Ah, gimme a break. You want to convince me that non-programmers can find
their way to the party with a fancy GUI? Go right ahead! I'll let you
wear the moose-hat for a whole week if you succeed. However, that doesn't
mean I'm going to stay quiet about just how unlikely I think it is!
Kylix is not a new idea - it's an old, mostly unsuccessful one ported to
Linux by an old and mostly unsuccessful company. If it had worked then
we'd all be out of business and most commercial apps would be "written" by
business majors with Delphi.
-sam
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by brian moseley <bc...@maz.org>.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> > Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
> > builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
> > that could be written in anything and do fine. People seem to come to
> > mod_perl because they need more performance or more control than they
> > can get from CGI.
>
> Agree.
you know, i think it's this attitude, or a more insidious
version of it, that keeps mod_perl from being as ubiquitous
as php. it's like having to pledge the frat before you can
get the hot chicks. i, for one, would like to see more
people getting interested in making it easy for people who
don't practice black magic to take advantage of mod_perl.
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Sam Tregar <sa...@tregar.com>.
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
> builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
> that could be written in anything and do fine. People seem to come to
> mod_perl because they need more performance or more control than they
> can get from CGI.
Agree.
> I'm not sure I want to try and draw in users who can't program at all.
Tangential thought: we may not want to draw individual non-programmers but
we undoubtably do work with non-programmers - artists and HTML "writers".
I think a GUI system that made it easier for these non-programmers to
interface with our creations would have some utility. I've got a
half-baked module sitting in my workspace, HTML::Template::Explorer, that
was an attempt to do something along these lines for HTML::Template. I
didn't get very far before I realized I didn't have a strong enough design
to be coding...
-sam
Re: kylix: rad!
Posted by Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>.
> competition with this product (which has some really
> freaking license clauses which you can read about on
> freshmeat) seems pretty easy:
[...]
> anybody interested?
Well, does this product actually have any users to compete for? GUI
builders usually don't work for anything but the most trivial websites
that could be written in anything and do fine. People seem to come to
mod_perl because they need more performance or more control than they
can get from CGI. I'm not sure I want to try and draw in users who
can't program at all.
- Perrin