You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Doug MacEachern <do...@telebusiness.co.nz> on 1998/01/04 22:29:33 UTC
httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
At the moment, I can configure my httpd with nothing but this in
httpd.conf:
PerlModule Apache::httpd_conf
But, I still have to tell httpd where httpd.conf is located, which
really sucks since Perl can find
Apache/httpd_conf.pm on it's own. With the patch below, mod_perl users
can simply start the server with 'httpd -MApache::httpd_conf'. `-M' is
also a Perl switch that pulls in Perl modules. Lots of folks are using
Perl to configure httpd these days, I'm sure this switch will prove
valuable. In my case, we're shipping an apache/mod_perl based product
which we'd like to have configure itself 100%. Having to use -d or -f
switches eats away at that percentage considerably. What do you think?
-Doug
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
+1
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 10:29:33AM +1300, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> At the moment, I can configure my httpd with nothing but this in
> httpd.conf:
>
> PerlModule Apache::httpd_conf
>
> But, I still have to tell httpd where httpd.conf is located, which
> really sucks since Perl can find
> Apache/httpd_conf.pm on it's own. With the patch below, mod_perl users
> can simply start the server with 'httpd -MApache::httpd_conf'. `-M' is
> also a Perl switch that pulls in Perl modules. Lots of folks are using
> Perl to configure httpd these days, I'm sure this switch will prove
> valuable. In my case, we're shipping an apache/mod_perl based product
> which we'd like to have configure itself 100%. Having to use -d or -f
> switches eats away at that percentage considerably. What do you think?
>
> -Doug
>
>
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>.
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> I am concerned about adding too many things to Apache that are only for
> 3rd party software, no matter how good.
Fairy nuff, but mod_perl isn't 3rd party software. It's
part of the Apache project and has been for some time now.
--
Rob Hartill Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
http://www.moviedatabase.com/ .. a site for sore eyes.
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> Sorry, I can't tell anymore if Apache+mod_perl is Perl inside of Apache or Apache
> inside of Perl ;-)
You perl weenies scare me.
Dean
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Doug MacEachern <do...@telebusiness.co.nz>.
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Doug MacEachern wrote:
> >
> > Ben Laurie wrote:
> >
> > > Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > httpd -M "config file directive"
> > > > >
> > > > > and it doesn't even require an API change!
> > > >
> > > > I like this one a lot more. Doug can you get by with something like this?
> > >
> > > I still suspect that there should be a "post config file read" version,
> > > too. Also -M doesn't make that much sense. Perhaps -C and -c (for
> > > pre-config and post-config)?
> >
> > Yes, great idea Ben!
> >
> > httpd -CPerlModule=Apache::httpd_conf would do just fine. I'll see about
> > implementing it later on tonight and send a patch if I get it going.
>
> You mean:
>
> httpd -C "PerlModule Apache::httpd_conf"
>
> I hope!
Yup! 'twas brain mush. Thinking of the Perl-ish syntax: perl
-MSomeModule=function
Sorry, I can't tell anymore if Apache+mod_perl is Perl inside of Apache or Apache
inside of Perl ;-)
-Doug
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > >
> > > > httpd -M "config file directive"
> > > >
> > > > and it doesn't even require an API change!
> > >
> > > I like this one a lot more. Doug can you get by with something like this?
> >
> > I still suspect that there should be a "post config file read" version,
> > too. Also -M doesn't make that much sense. Perhaps -C and -c (for
> > pre-config and post-config)?
>
> Yes, great idea Ben!
>
> httpd -CPerlModule=Apache::httpd_conf would do just fine. I'll see about
> implementing it later on tonight and send a patch if I get it going.
You mean:
httpd -C "PerlModule Apache::httpd_conf"
I hope!
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Doug MacEachern <do...@telebusiness.co.nz>.
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >
> > > httpd -M "config file directive"
> > >
> > > and it doesn't even require an API change!
> >
> > I like this one a lot more. Doug can you get by with something like this?
>
> I still suspect that there should be a "post config file read" version,
> too. Also -M doesn't make that much sense. Perhaps -C and -c (for
> pre-config and post-config)?
Yes, great idea Ben!
httpd -CPerlModule=Apache::httpd_conf would do just fine. I'll see about
implementing it later on tonight and send a patch if I get it going.
-Doug
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > httpd -M "config file directive"
> >
> > and it doesn't even require an API change!
>
> I like this one a lot more. Doug can you get by with something like this?
I still suspect that there should be a "post config file read" version,
too. Also -M doesn't make that much sense. Perhaps -C and -c (for
pre-config and post-config)?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> httpd -M "config file directive"
>
> and it doesn't even require an API change!
I like this one a lot more. Doug can you get by with something like this?
Dean
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> >
> > Yeah I wouldn't mind if we had a generic interface for this... if someone
> > can think of one that'd be great.
>
> httpd -M <module name>=<module option>
>
> Obviously, this can only apply to staticly linked modules.
Actually, we could have two variants, one pre-config, one post-config.
Come to think of it, even more flexible is:
httpd -M "config file directive"
and it doesn't even require an API change!
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> Yeah I wouldn't mind if we had a generic interface for this... if someone
> can think of one that'd be great.
httpd -M <module name>=<module option>
Obviously, this can only apply to staticly linked modules.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
Yeah I wouldn't mind if we had a generic interface for this... if someone
can think of one that'd be great.
Dean
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> I am concerned about adding too many things to Apache that are only for
> 3rd party software, no matter how good.
>
> At the least, it needs to be completely compile-time settable, ie. so that
> 8k isn't wasted for the string, etc.
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> > At the moment, I can configure my httpd with nothing but this in
> > httpd.conf:
> >
> > PerlModule Apache::httpd_conf
> >
> > But, I still have to tell httpd where httpd.conf is located, which
> > really sucks since Perl can find
> > Apache/httpd_conf.pm on it's own. With the patch below, mod_perl users
> > can simply start the server with 'httpd -MApache::httpd_conf'. `-M' is
> > also a Perl switch that pulls in Perl modules. Lots of folks are using
> > Perl to configure httpd these days, I'm sure this switch will prove
> > valuable. In my case, we're shipping an apache/mod_perl based product
> > which we'd like to have configure itself 100%. Having to use -d or -f
> > switches eats away at that percentage considerably. What do you think?
> >
> > -Doug
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: httpd -MApache::httpd_conf
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
I am concerned about adding too many things to Apache that are only for
3rd party software, no matter how good.
At the least, it needs to be completely compile-time settable, ie. so that
8k isn't wasted for the string, etc.
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> At the moment, I can configure my httpd with nothing but this in
> httpd.conf:
>
> PerlModule Apache::httpd_conf
>
> But, I still have to tell httpd where httpd.conf is located, which
> really sucks since Perl can find
> Apache/httpd_conf.pm on it's own. With the patch below, mod_perl users
> can simply start the server with 'httpd -MApache::httpd_conf'. `-M' is
> also a Perl switch that pulls in Perl modules. Lots of folks are using
> Perl to configure httpd these days, I'm sure this switch will prove
> valuable. In my case, we're shipping an apache/mod_perl based product
> which we'd like to have configure itself 100%. Having to use -d or -f
> switches eats away at that percentage considerably. What do you think?
>
> -Doug
>
>
>