in reply to Re: How common is mod_perl?
in thread How common is mod_perl?

Mason doesn't actually require mod_perl. It can run as CGI (however it will be very slow).
Does this mean, mod_perl only provides Mason the persistent CGI process capability? Or, are any other capabilities of mod_perl taken advantage of by Mason?

Put in another way, if the persistence of CGI processes is provided by in a non-mod_perl way (example, FastCGI or SpeedyCGI), does Mason work as effectively as in a mod_perl environment?

Thanks,
/prakash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: How common is mod_perl?
by IlyaM (Parson) on Feb 15, 2002 at 00:09 UTC
    Does this mean, mod_perl only provides Mason the persistent CGI process capability? Or, are any other capabilities of mod_perl taken advantage of by Mason?

    That's right. Mason mostly needs mod_perl for persistence. However there are some sweeties only avialable if you use Mason under mod_perl. Like simple configuration via apache config files and access to Apache API.

    Put in another way, if the persistence of CGI processes is provided by in a non-mod_perl way (example, FastCGI or SpeedyCGI)

    I heard about people who use Mason this way. You can find some info about it in mason maillist archives.

    --
    Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom