perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: ModPerl::Registry instead of Apache::Registry?
Date Tue, 06 May 2003 07:46:17 GMT
Marc M. Adkins wrote:
>>>To replace FakeRequest, look at Apache::Test in the 2.0 distribution.
>>If there are folks who look for a really fun project to do, a
>>complete rewrite
>>of Apache::FakeRequest is needed and in mp2 it should be possible
>>to turn it a
>>much more useful package. Hint: the functions in APR:: namespace doesn't
>>require mod_perl to be running.
> So is this just a test tool?
> I was musing about a somewhat more ambitious bit of foo back in April.  I
> was talking about a way to run mod_perl handlers (the basic response
> handlers, anyway) from CGI, FCGI or HTTP::Daemon.  The idea being
> portability, so that code could be written for mod_perl and hosted on sites
> that didn't support same (like many hosting ISPs).
> I already have a set of classes that support all four modes, but they use
> their own calling conventions, which are much less complete than what
> mod_perl provides.  When I started thinking about using a more standard API
> I concluded that mod_perl's was the most complete and probably the best
> overall model.
> Anyway, I looked up Apache::FakeRequest and it seems like it's just there to
> support testing.  Which is cool, but you hint about turning it into a 'more
> useful' I figgered I would ask again.  Running from
> HTTP::Daemon would allow running in Perl debug, might satisfy the testing
> requirements whilst providing somewhat more overall functionality.

It's up to you, what do you want to use it for. It's just for running your 
code outside of mod_perl, be it a test or not.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message