On 25.01.2019 21:15, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On 1/25/2019 11:00 AM, Michael A. Capone wrote:
>> I have to add my voice to the growing chorus here.
>
> Me too. Frequently when the topic of mod_perl going stale comes up somebody jumps in with
> "That's old stuff, you should be using PSGI/Plack". Those people simply don't understand
> the overall utility of mod_perl beyond simply running a webapp <sigh>. I have
> authentication and authorization handlers written in mod_perl, and the ability to directly
> access the Apache API allows things that PSGI simply cannot do.
I think that is a reasonable bet to say that by the mere fact of being subscribed to this
list, we all express our interest in, and love of perl and mod_perl in particular.
(I cannot complain, as I was the first one to hijack John's question in that sense).
But really, the underlying concern here seems to find out a bit about the future support
and evolution of mod_perl, in parallel to the evolution of Apache httpd and the HTTP
protocol(s).
So if a mod_perl committer would happen to read this, it would be nice to get some
information or pointers.
There is a list here, so I suppose there are some such people :
http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=perl
As this is an Apache Project, I would guess that starting from the main site apache.org,
there must also be a way to find out about any activity in that project (it's named
sometimes "perl", sometimes "mod_perl" there, but if you follow the project link, you end
up on the same on-line documentation page that we all know and love, but which doesn't
seem to lead to any further data on what's happening currently).
There is also a "perl-dev" mailing list, but browsing it backward from today doesn't seem
to show much activity since January 2017 (Hi, Rainer and Steve :-)
The good side about this of course, is that mod_perl would appear to be a very stable and
reliable module, since there is also not much evidence of bugs, patches etc.
The less good side is that it appears indeed *very* stable.
Unless we're all on the wrong track, and there is a hidden project somewhere for a
mod_perl 3 based on perl 6..
> On 1/25/2019 11:00 AM, Michael A. Capone wrote:
>> I have to add my voice to the growing chorus here.
>
> Me too. Frequently when the topic of mod_perl going stale comes up somebody jumps in with
> "That's old stuff, you should be using PSGI/Plack". Those people simply don't understand
> the overall utility of mod_perl beyond simply running a webapp <sigh>. I have
> authentication and authorization handlers written in mod_perl, and the ability to directly
> access the Apache API allows things that PSGI simply cannot do.
I think that is a reasonable bet to say that by the mere fact of being subscribed to this
list, we all express our interest in, and love of perl and mod_perl in particular.
(I cannot complain, as I was the first one to hijack John's question in that sense).
But really, the underlying concern here seems to find out a bit about the future support
and evolution of mod_perl, in parallel to the evolution of Apache httpd and the HTTP
protocol(s).
So if a mod_perl committer would happen to read this, it would be nice to get some
information or pointers.
There is a list here, so I suppose there are some such people :
http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=perl
As this is an Apache Project, I would guess that starting from the main site apache.org,
there must also be a way to find out about any activity in that project (it's named
sometimes "perl", sometimes "mod_perl" there, but if you follow the project link, you end
up on the same on-line documentation page that we all know and love, but which doesn't
seem to lead to any further data on what's happening currently).
There is also a "perl-dev" mailing list, but browsing it backward from today doesn't seem
to show much activity since January 2017 (Hi, Rainer and Steve :-)
The good side about this of course, is that mod_perl would appear to be a very stable and
reliable module, since there is also not much evidence of bugs, patches etc.
The less good side is that it appears indeed *very* stable.
Unless we're all on the wrong track, and there is a hidden project somewhere for a
mod_perl 3 based on perl 6..