I'm curious because I've never used them, but what's the added advantage or utility of an NPH script over a non-NPH script. To bypass output buffer and avoid browser timeouts, I usually just set $&#124 and an alarm:

{
  local $| = 1;
  local $SIG{ALRM} = sub { print `/usr/bin/fortune`; alarm ALARM_TIME;
+ };
  alarm 1;
  ... process that (might) take a very long time ...
  alarm 0;
}
[download]

Would using NPH be better?

update Thanks, merlyn.

Thanks, ERic

This works under modern Apache, but under older Apache versions, the script also had to be named nph-something to turn off the buffering. Consider the name as a signal that Apache should do its own $| = 1 equivalent.

The other things that older Apache required was that these "NPH" scripts provide the first HTTP status line as well, since Apache essentially stepped out of the way entirely. I think this is still true for scripts named like this as a backward compatiblity.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

I have the same question.... I have several scripts that take longer than my browser has patience. Where exactly do I PUT the ' $|=1; ' in order to make sure that I don't get timed out?