perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Octavian Rasnita" <>
Subject Re: survey
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:53:44 GMT
Some advocacy ideas:

I think that there are a few groups we should target:
- The programmers/net admins that are already using mod_perl, but older
versions (Macromedia is using Apache 1.3 and mod_perl 1)
- the programmers that already know perl but they are using only CGI scripts
- The programmers using other languages like PHP, Java, ASP...

1. The users of older versions of mod_perl
- It is important for them to see that it is very easy to upgrade to latest
version of mod_perl.
- It should really be easy to upgrade to mod_perl. Maybe some scripts that
automaticly make all the replacements could be helpful.
- Maybe some short tutorials about how to upgrade Apache 1.3 to Apache 2 and
mod_perl 1 to mod_perl 2 would be helpful.
- It is important to explain why mod_perl2 is better and why Apache 2 is
better. (Without Apache 2, they won't have mod_perl 2).
- It is not important to explain them that perl is good, or that mod_perl is
good, because they are already using them.

2. The programmers which are using only cgi scripts
- It is important to explain why mod_perl is better than cgi, and make some
speed comparisons (telling that it could be x times faster)..
- It is very important to explain how easy is to install mod_perl.
- They need to be tell that the simple cgi programs can run using mod_perl
with no change.

3. Those who are using other programming languages
- It won't be easy to target this group, but you should tell them why
mod_perl is better, how it works, make some speed comparisons between the
same program made in perl and Java with the program made in perl and ran by
- They should see that mod_perl is easy to install.
- They should know that there are no conflicts between mod_perl and other
Apache modules like mod_php and that they can run both on the same server.
This way maybe some of them will want to give it a try.

Apache should promote mod_perl by including a sample configuration file in
the kit, or some (commented out) settings in httpd.conf.

Most of those who are not using now mod_perl but are using a computer, are
probably using Windows, so there should be very easy for them to install
mod_perl under Windows.
(I think this target group has the most chances to bring more mod_perl
users, and after using Windows as a test machine, most of them will probably
use it under Linux)
Many users don't know that apxs can be installed under Windows, so that
installation kit for apxs for Windows should be included in all the versions
of mod_perl, promoting that mod_perl can be installed easy under Windows.

Most perl users under Windows are using Active Perl, and the default ppm
repositories of Active State should include mod_perl.
They should also include all the necessary modules which are not installed
automaticly by mod_perl (those from Apache:: and Apache2::).

Anyway, PHP will increase in popularity much faster because it has some
advantages perl doesn't have, so this fight won't be easy.

Perl would be better if:
- It will have a way of crypting/hiding the source code just like PHP.
This way, the software companies will be able to create web pages for other
companies without providing the source code, and some of them might choose
perl and mod_perl.
- If perl would have a separate interpreter which will be able to parse
templates directly (a kind of php, but using a perl code).
This interpreter would be a good start for the new programmers that just
want to create simple pages, very fast.
- If all the modules from CPAN will be able to run under all operating
system, including Windows, and all those modules could be installed without
needing a C compiler installed.
Some perl modules cannot be installed using the cpan shell under Windows,
and give errors when trying to install them, but they don't need
compilation, and if they are copied manually in the perl tree, they are
working fine. I heard a few programmers telling that perl is a bad language
because they have tried some modules from CPAN and those modules were not
working fine.
(Of course, most of them probably tried them under Windows).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Perrin Harkins" <>
To: "Frank Wiles" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 19:33 PM
Subject: Re: survey

> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 09:41 -0500, Frank Wiles wrote:
> >   Perrin, if you need some help or need someone to take it over,
> >   I've got some time this weekend I could work on it.  Let me know.
> The document has been in the mod_perl docs subversion repository for a
> while now, here:
> I have not had time to work on it.  What it still needs is incorporation
> of a Win32 success story that I have in bits and pieces in several e-
> mails.  It's not a simple job to turn it into something coherent.  If
> you want to try it, I can forward them to you.
> It is probably already too long according to friends of mine who work in
> PR-related fields, so anything added to it needs to be very short.  I
> realize that everyone wants to say everything they think about mod_perl
> in this one document, but our target here is places like eWeek, not
> hardcore developers.  It needs to be short enough that someone might
> bother to read it.
> After that is done, I can send it through the Apache Software Foundation
> machinery and get it sent out.
> - Perrin

View raw message