perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Young <>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: map_to_storage hook question..]
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:45:23 GMT
> But we 
> could internally shortcut map_to_storage if transhandler has returned 
> OK, no? Do we really need yet another hook?

I'm kinda against any kind of magic here.  apache separates the hooks, 
probably for a good reason (even if we can't see it at the moment).

> Would it still be an added value if we can make PerlTransHandler behave 
> like 1.3 did?

perhaps, but I need to think about it more.  the filename errors from 
map_to_storage have always bothered me, so we need to decide whether we tell 
  API users to set a bogus filename, or write a PerlMapToStorageHandler, or 
live with the errors.  or we have mod_perl do some action-at-a-distance thing.

lemme think about it some.  but I'm almost always in favor of a 1 to 1 
mapping of Apache hooks and mod_perl hooks, as it keeps with the idea that 
mod_perl is Perl access to the C API, rather than some magic inbetween API 
all it's own.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message