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: 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