handlers versus scripts, SSI difference

[gerard uolaquetalestem <vi...@mixmail.com>]

I began some weeks ago to think about translating my .pl scripts (that run 
with mod_perl 2 ::registry) to perl handlers.
My first problem was to find how to include a perl handler as i included my 
cgi scripts (include virtual).
I found that #perl directive allows you to include with Apache::include the 
same registry scripts, but making it faster.
I also note that in fact you could include any perl handler with that #perl 
directive.

But it seems to be that with modperl as DSO this directive does not work, 
and that Apache::include is only a modperl1.x funcionality, so discarted in 
mod perl 2.

I have had problems building modperl as a static module.
Finally i could build as static module and as DSO module (mod_perl.a and 
mod_perl.so) but i didn't have modperl enabled without loadmodule 
mod_perl.so, so static version is not running.
Windows binaries are all DSO, and i don't have VB to compile.

And i've read that compiling mod_perl statically doesn't allow you to 
compile other DSO modules after.

Then i think, if DSO is the comfortable way to do things (not in practical but 
in concept), how can i include a perl handler in my HTML page?

I know there are modules like MASON or similar, and now i will enter to 
input and output filters, but comparing with the easiest way of Include 
virtual registry scripts i begin to think that perl handlers in mod perl lose 
here against cgi simple scripts.

So this is my question. Are perlhandlers better than CGI registry scripts in 
speed but not in funcionality??? as i think CGI people uses to include their 
scripts a lot!!
-----
Un nuevo buscador m�s r�pido, eficaz y sencillo http://www.plaf.com
Ya.com ADSL Home 24h, M�dem + Alta + 1 mes Gratis http://acceso.ya.com/adslhome24h/

Re: handlers versus scripts, SSI difference

[Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>]

> But it seems to be that with modperl as DSO this directive does not work, 
> and that Apache::include is only a modperl1.x funcionality, so discarted in 
> mod perl 2.

I've started this port, but it's a long way from being completed - it 
doesn't work right and dumps core, but I haven't looked at it in quite a 
while.  oh, and it's really ugly too.  in other words, very much a work in 
progress.

here it is if you want to help - I'll probably get back to it in a few weeks.

http://www.modperlcookbook.org/~geoff/modules/experimental/Apache-SSI-2.0.tar.gz

--Geoff

Re: handlers versus scripts, SSI difference

[Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>]

On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 04:05, gerard uolaquetalestem wrote:
> But it seems to be that with modperl as DSO this directive does not work,
> and that Apache::include is only a modperl1.x funcionality, so discarted in
> mod perl 2.

I don't think this has anything to do with DSO vs. static. 
Apache::Include and Apache::SSI are the two ways of doing includes of
mod_perl scripts in mod_perl 1.x and they have not been ported to
mod_perl 2 yet.

If you are using apache 2, you should look at using the apache 2 version
of mod_include, which can be used as a filter.  Take a look at the
documentation here:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/mod_include.html

> So this is my question. Are perlhandlers better than CGI registry scripts in
> speed but not in funcionality???

Perl handlers have better speed and functionality than CGI scripts
running under Registry, but that has nothing to do with SSI.

- Perrin