use Perl

• Agree to a certain extent... (Score:2)

  by rjray (1649) on 2004.09.06 20:58 (#34084) Homepage Journal

  I've got to agree with you, at least in terms of people using mod_perl for super-CGI rather than using mod_perl's strengths.

  At Red Hat, we did a little of both. CGI-type scripts for short-term or one-off projects, and sometimes for prototypes. But most of redhat.com was running under Apache::ASP (that might have changed by now, though). The guys who cooked up the rhn.redhat.com site used their own ASP-like system, but it too was done as a location-handler, not a souped-up CGI library.

  Unfortunately (and I willingly risk the wrath of any current co-worker who sees this), my every effort to develop applications using the full mod_perl platform at my current gig have met with resistance. They feel that the performance of Apache::Registry is comparable to a more integrated mod_perl location handler, and the latter requires server re-start when you update it, whereas Apache::Registry can better handle hot-swapping of code. After the first couple of times, I quit arguing.

  --
  

  --rjray

  Reply to This

  • Re:Agree to a certain extent... (Score:1)

    by perrin (4270)

    There are real problems with Apache::Registry, principally with the magic required to turn your CGI into a module and what that does to your subroutines. Also, reloading things on the fly, while easy to add to handlers with Apache::Reload, will kill your shared memory, and should not be allowed on a production server.

    If you must use Apache::Registry, use something like CGI::Application so that you can avoid all of the subroutine traps that Registry causes.
    • Re:Agree to a certain extent... (Score:2)

      by rjray (1649)

      You are familiar with the phrase, "preaching to the choir", right?

      --
      

      --rjray
      • Re:Agree to a certain extent... (Score:1)

        by perrin (4270)

        Just trying to give you some arguments to use on your co-workers.