Enough about etoys!

[Jeff Gleixner <gl...@uswest.net>]

Ed Phillips wrote:
> 
> It is interesting and and somewhat ironic that the Engineering
> dep at eToys [...]
>Paul Singh wrote:

Enough already!  Please stop posting non-mod_perl related drivel to this
list!  It is neither ironic nor interesting and it's not why people have
signed-up for this list.

Yes, this message isn't related.  Sorry all. I'm just fed up with this
noise.

Thank you
--
Groucho Marx Saying of the moment :
	Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

Re: Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?

[darren chamberlain <da...@boston.com>]

Michael Todd Glazier (michaeltodd@Galli-Glazier.com) said something to this effect:
> As a way to speed up the CGIs but allow my designers easy access to 
> the html file, I'm executing an Apache::Registry CGI script from 
> within an .shtml document using #exec cgi . The Apache manual says to 
> prefer use of #include virtual, but that doesn't pass the query 
> string from the request. In a way this is a hacked template system. :)
> 
> Is there a reason, barring the known fact it would be faster as a 
> full blown module :), not to use this set-up?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - mt

How about using Perl includes, like <!--#perl sub="My::Package" -->? Much
cleaner, and still consistant with other types of includes. And, since it
uses the standard Apache/mod_perl module format (sub handler and all that),
the modules you use in Perl subs can be easily moved over to full handlers
if necessary.

Perl subs requires that mod_perl be built staticalll with Apache, and that
mod_perl built with EVERYTHING=1 or PERL_SSI=1.

darren

-- 
If God had not given us sticky tape, it would have been necessary to invent it.

Re: Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?

[Vivek Khera <kh...@kciLink.com>]

>>>>> "MTG" == Michael Todd Glazier <mi...@galli-glazier.com> writes:

MTG> <!--#perl sub="Apache::Include" arg="/perl/ssi.pl" -->

MTG> The book Professional Apache says this is more efficient than include 
MTG> virtual since it allows scripts to be persistent, but I don't see how 
MTG> they would not be using include virtual.

I have mod_perl as dynamic since I run different configs on different
boxes and I hate to have multiple binaries...  The #perl doesn't work
with dynamic mod_perl.

The boot Professional Apache must assume that whatever you're #include
virtual-ing is non-mod_perl otherwise this statement wrong.

Re: Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?

[Michael Todd Glazier <mi...@galli-glazier.com>]

At 9:39 AM -0400 6/22/00, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
>I use the include virtual in some situations.  If you want the query
>string, just append it:
>
>  <!--#include virtual="/path/to/program?$QUERY_STRING" -->

Do you happen to know if there's any performance difference between 
using the include and virtual and using the following:

<!--#perl sub="Apache::Include" arg="/perl/ssi.pl" -->

The book Professional Apache says this is more efficient than include 
virtual since it allows scripts to be persistent, but I don't see how 
they would not be using include virtual.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the time.

- mt

Re: Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?

[Vivek Khera <kh...@kciLink.com>]

>>>>> "MTG" == Michael Todd Glazier <mi...@Galli-Glazier.com> writes:

MTG> As a way to speed up the CGIs but allow my designers easy access to 
MTG> the html file, I'm executing an Apache::Registry CGI script from 
MTG> within an .shtml document using #exec cgi . The Apache manual says to 
MTG> prefer use of #include virtual, but that doesn't pass the query 
MTG> string from the request. In a way this is a hacked template system. :)

I use the include virtual in some situations.  If you want the query
string, just append it:

 <!--#include virtual="/path/to/program?$QUERY_STRING" -->

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.                Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera@kciLink.com       Rockville, MD       +1-301-545-6996
GPG & MIME spoken here            http://www.khera.org/~vivek/

RE: Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?

[Kenneth Lee <ke...@alfacomtech.com>]

Hey, I'm doing this too! I use #include virtual to invoke 
my CGI scripts to embed some dynamic objects. But to do so 
my scripts have to add a if-construct to get the query string 
when running as a SSI script:

  if ($ENV{SERVER_PROTOCOL} eq 'INCLUDED') {
    ($qstr) =~ ($ENV{REQUEST_URI} =~ /\?(.*)/);
    $q = new CGI $qstr;
  } else {
    $q = new CGI;
  }

yeah, this is ugly, but i'm doing this anyway.
hope this helps.
kenneth


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Todd Glazier [mailto:michaeltodd@Galli-Glazier.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 9:36 AM
To: modperl@apache.org
Subject: Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?


As a way to speed up the CGIs but allow my designers easy access to 
the html file, I'm executing an Apache::Registry CGI script from 
within an .shtml document using #exec cgi . The Apache manual says to 
prefer use of #include virtual, but that doesn't pass the query 
string from the request. In a way this is a hacked template system. :)

Is there a reason, barring the known fact it would be faster as a 
full blown module :), not to use this set-up?

Thanks!

- mt

Any reason not to SSI include Registry scripts?

[Michael Todd Glazier <mi...@Galli-Glazier.com>]

As a way to speed up the CGIs but allow my designers easy access to 
the html file, I'm executing an Apache::Registry CGI script from 
within an .shtml document using #exec cgi . The Apache manual says to 
prefer use of #include virtual, but that doesn't pass the query 
string from the request. In a way this is a hacked template system. :)

Is there a reason, barring the known fact it would be faster as a 
full blown module :), not to use this set-up?

Thanks!

- mt

Re: [OT] Enough about etoys!

[Gunther Birznieks <gu...@extropia.com>]

At 01:49 PM 6/21/00 -0500, Jeff Gleixner wrote:
>Ed Phillips wrote:
> >
> > It is interesting and and somewhat ironic that the Engineering
> > dep at eToys [...]
> >Paul Singh wrote:
>
>Enough already!  Please stop posting non-mod_perl related drivel to this
>list!  It is neither ironic nor interesting and it's not why people have
>signed-up for this list.
>
>Yes, this message isn't related.  Sorry all. I'm just fed up with this
>noise.

Yeah, but it should be [OT] Enough about etoys! :) Believe it or not , some 
people do explicitly filter out OT's so it's considered etiquette to put that.

However, with that said, my impression is that OT topics were at least 
moderately associated with mod_perl even if not directly. This is just 
really really not associated with mod_perl directly or indirectly (from a 
technical level) and so although I read OT posts, I really hate this thread.

Especially when it's clearly not a black and white issue and too emotional 
for a mailing list. I also do not want to hear this talk anymore, stuff 
like this is better for slashdot. (And it's one of the reasons I stopped 
reading slashdot although I was an addict for a long while).

I am also a ashamed at the thought of people new to mod_perl joining this 
list and seeing these occasional nasty messages back and forth(whether 
warranted or not there are other forums for this type of thing).

I prefer if we keep this list professional and as ON TOPIC (OT ... :)) as 
possible even for OT messages.

Newbies don't really always understand OT abbreviation and what it means 
either.

Later,
    Gunther