Re: ANNOUNCE: the new perl.apache.org is alive now!

[David Kaufman <gi...@optonline.net>]

"Matt Sergeant" <ma...@sergeant.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, David Kaufman wrote:
>
> > i still notice, however that the *content* of the "Sites Running
mod_perl"
> > page doesn't seem to have been updated.  about 6 months ago, i sent
notices
> > about two sites that we (Vanguard Media) had launched to the email
address
> > that used to be on that page, but they were never included.
>
> Are there that many sites any more that are running pure mod_perl? I would
> expect most new sites to be running one of the framework modules -
> EmbPerl, TT, Mason, AxKit, ASP, etc... Perhaps live sites is a more
> framework specific thing (for example AxKit has its own list).

i guess the answer depends on your definition of pure "mod_perl".  our sites
are developed using CGI::Application and HTML::Template, which might be
called a framework, a toolset or a swiss army knife :-)  but the server
headers say:

~ lynx -head -dump http://www.pageaday.com
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:24:46 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25

and

~ lynx -head -dump http://www.asiasociety.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:58:23 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.24 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_ssl/2.8.8 OpenSSL/0.9.6c

so, yes i consider them "pure mod_perl sites" though the code is not *pure*
native mod_perl handler code.  CGI::App's run faster under mod_perl in
Registry mode, but they also can be run (unmodified, if designed that way)
as CGI's.

do AxKit, Embperl, or Mason advertise themselves in the server signature?
can sites developed using all of these frameworks not also be said to be
"running mod_perl"?

perhaps the question should be: can sites developed on these frameworks run
*without* mod_perl?

-dave


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org