You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com> on 1999/02/01 16:57:56 UTC
[PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
This patch introduces a new Win32 specifc config. directive to direct
Apache to optionally search the Win32 registry for the interpreter to
run scripts with. The default is to peek the shebang (!#) line at the
beginning of the script. The directive is:
Win32InterpreterSource
It takes a single argument, either "registry" or "shebang" (unquoted, of
course).
ap_call_exec() in the Win32 path has been simplified and cleaned up a
bit. If a registry search fails, the code will peek the shebang (and
issue an informational message that the registry search failed). I
have a couple of ideas on how to make 16-bit CGI's work; all are hacks
and are not included with this patch. I'm inclined to say we just don't
support them.
I'm looking for comments and suggestions.
Thanks,
Bill Stoddard
stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
Paul Sutton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > This patch introduces a new Win32 specifc config. directive to direct
> > Apache to optionally search the Win32 registry for the interpreter to
> > run scripts with. The default is to peek the shebang (!#) line at the
> > beginning of the script. The directive is:
> >
> > Win32InterpreterSource
> >
> > It takes a single argument, either "registry" or "shebang" (unquoted, of
> > course).
>
> Do we need the "Win32" bit? We don't use any other OS specific directives
> prefixes (UnixMaxSpareServers or Win32ThreadsPerChild).
I'm certainly not stuck on Win32... Maybe "ScriptInterpreterSource"?
The Win32 prefix does identify the config directive as being for Win32
only. I don't see how the notion of 'interpreter source' can be extended
to Unix.
--
Bill Stoddard
stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@lerdorf.on.ca>.
> Paul Sutton wrote:
> >
> > Do we need the "Win32" bit? We don't use any other OS specific directives
> > prefixes (UnixMaxSpareServers or Win32ThreadsPerChild).
>
> Erm, actually we do. There's "BS2000Account" in the core. But
> I think that's the only one.
>
> If a directive can only going to be useful on a single platform,
> and a complete no-op on all others, I personally have no problem
> with the directive name making that clear.
But might this particular one not also be applicable to OS/2 ?
-Rasmus
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Paul Sutton wrote:
> > ...
> > Finally, if we do decide to name directives after the OS, is "Win32"
> > actually the best name to use? Not many people refer to Windows systems as
> > "Win32", and isn't there a 64 bit Windows planned/in progress?
>
> Many programmers refer to it as Win32, actually.
That's coz MS called the API Win32. In fact I have MS Press books on my
bookshelf called things like "Win32 Programmer's Reference".
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Paul Sutton wrote:
> > ...
> > Finally, if we do decide to name directives after the OS, is "Win32"
> > actually the best name to use? Not many people refer to Windows systems as
> > "Win32", and isn't there a 64 bit Windows planned/in progress?
>
> Many programmers refer to it as Win32, actually.
>
> And yes, there are 64-bit APIs on the way, and it is referenced as Win64
> :-)
Good arguments. I will change the directive name to
"ScriptInterpreterSource" (kinda goes along with ScriptAlias, etc.)
unless I hear good arguments against...
Bill
--
Bill Stoddard
stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
Paul Sutton wrote:
> ...
> Finally, if we do decide to name directives after the OS, is "Win32"
> actually the best name to use? Not many people refer to Windows systems as
> "Win32", and isn't there a 64 bit Windows planned/in progress?
Many programmers refer to it as Win32, actually.
And yes, there are 64-bit APIs on the way, and it is referenced as Win64
:-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Paul Sutton <pa...@awe.com>.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Paul Sutton wrote:
> >
> > Do we need the "Win32" bit? We don't use any other OS specific directives
> > prefixes (UnixMaxSpareServers or Win32ThreadsPerChild).
>
> Erm, actually we do. There's "BS2000Account" in the core. But
> I think that's the only one.
I thought that was rather different - it wasn't setting a option which
determines a course of action in Apache on BS2000, it was actually
directly specifying something required by the OS. It was infact setting
the BS2000 Account number (hence the name of the directive). But maybe
that distinction is too subtle, so ok, there is one directive with a
operating system prefix. However I think it is pretty unlikely that that
directive will have meaning on any other system except perhaps something
closely related to the BS2000.
> If a directive can only going to be useful on a single platform,
> and a complete no-op on all others, I personally have no problem
> with the directive name making that clear.
I think it is ugly, makes Win32 look like a second-class port of Apache
(it may be, but there is no need to enforce that impression via
directives), and could lead to directive bloat if we decide latter than
any OS-named directive could actually be used on other OSes.
Finally, if we do decide to name directives after the OS, is "Win32"
actually the best name to use? Not many people refer to Windows systems as
"Win32", and isn't there a 64 bit Windows planned/in progress?
Paul
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Paul Sutton wrote:
>
> Do we need the "Win32" bit? We don't use any other OS specific directives
> prefixes (UnixMaxSpareServers or Win32ThreadsPerChild).
Erm, actually we do. There's "BS2000Account" in the core. But
I think that's the only one.
If a directive can only going to be useful on a single platform,
and a complete no-op on all others, I personally have no problem
with the directive name making that clear.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
Re: [PATCH] Win32 Script Interpreter Source
Posted by Paul Sutton <pa...@awe.com>.
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> This patch introduces a new Win32 specifc config. directive to direct
> Apache to optionally search the Win32 registry for the interpreter to
> run scripts with. The default is to peek the shebang (!#) line at the
> beginning of the script. The directive is:
>
> Win32InterpreterSource
>
> It takes a single argument, either "registry" or "shebang" (unquoted, of
> course).
Do we need the "Win32" bit? We don't use any other OS specific directives
prefixes (UnixMaxSpareServers or Win32ThreadsPerChild).
Paul