Re: <Perl>...</Perl> and startup.pl equivalent?

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/12/14]

colin_e wrote:
> Cheers Martin. As I said, i'm new to this game. I would only ever intend 
> to put
> config-related code in the conf files, tbut i'm still trying to work out 
> the best way
> to do things.
> 
> In my case I have multiple production/development machines on different
> architectures. I want to keep the configs as far as possible in sync, 
> but some
> pieces have to be different (e.g. mod_perl needs a .dll loaded on 
> Windows that
> is not required on Solaris). The docs describe exactly this use of 
> <Perl> for
> conditional configuration.
> 
> As it stands i've gone for a rather cruder approach, with the 
> architecture-dependent
> elements in the "main line" httpd.conf, and the common bits being pulled 
> in with
> Include. The logic for this decision was that the conf file would still 
> be usable even
> if the machine's perl configuration got screwed up. I have no idea if 
> this is the right
> decision at this point, but I'm sure i'll find out by experience :-}

Could you explain how making:

PerlRequire /path/to/startup.pl

makes it harder to keep things in sync? I'm not sure i understand your 
example of Windows dll.

        -- 
        __________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@xxxxxx.xxx http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com

-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html