perl-asp mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Chamas <>
Subject Re: Migrate existing Apache::ASP code from mod_perl to mod_fcgid?
Date Tue, 20 May 2014 19:06:04 GMT
Hi Warren!

My apologies for the long delay, with some big & unexpected events slowing me 
down earlier this year, I finally got a chance to look at getting Apache::ASP 
running with mod_perl + Apache 2.4... it seems like work is being done in this 
area and there may be a rough release coming soon with mod_perl 2.09 for real 
Apache 2.4 support.

One thing I thought was interesting in researching Apache 2.4 vs. Apache 2.2 was 
that it seems that the vast majority of the active install base is still on 
Apache 2.2 towards 90%+ in Netcraft & W3Tech surveys, and many have complained 
with general upgrade issues to 2.4.  It seems then that 2.2 will have a lot of 
support/momentum for some time, and your timeline of years seems about right...

So where does this put you in the consideration of platform migration etc? 
Plack, Mason, TT, etc.  I am not sure how hard it would be to migrate to Plack. 
  Their is basic support in the Apache::ASP core to handle running in different 
environments including pure CGI and command line, the latter used for 
bootstrapping the make test mode.  Might take days to get something rough 
working there.  I agree mixing the Apache::ASP object model into another 
template framework would make for more difficult work, and you might end up with 
a mess besides!  I am curious to hear how your platform decision plays out here!



Netcraft survey suggesting 1-2% usage of Apache 2.4 as of Feb.

W3Tech survey showing 90% 2.2 usage as of May

Here is the April mod_perl 2.09 status update (copied below)

"The latest release of mod_perl doesn't yet support httpd-2.4, but we
are working on it and getting close to making a new release that does.

In the meantime you might like to try out the "httpd24threading" branch at

which is largely working and is what will (hopefully soon) become mod_perl-2.09."

On 12/27/13 5:33 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On 12/27/2013 17:04, Josh Chamas wrote:
>> it does seem that there is some progress on getting
>> mod_perl to work under Apache 2.4.
> I was aware of such efforts when I posted, but didn't mention the option since
> this third-party mod_perl work feels like a temporary solution. We don't want to
> use a hack to get us through to RHEL 8, then be back in the same stew pot.
> Besides, we already have an effective option for limping by.  RHEL 5 and 6 will
> still be useful to us for years, and RHEL 7 is probably a large fraction of a
> year from release.  This gives us enough time to move to a system we won't have
> to replace again in another 3 years.
> The question is, will that system be Apache::ASP 3?  Apache::ASP::TNG?
> Apache::ASP::TheSearchForSPDY?
> What would it take to migrate the full ASP model to Plack + mod_fcgid?
> (  That seems to be the way the cool kids are doing their
> Perl web frameworks these days.  Is it just a matter of replacing all the
> Apache::Foo module calls with Plack or PSGI equivalents?  I assume all the MLDBM
> stuff doesn't have to change.
>  From our point of view, Apache::ASP has two main pieces: the ASP object model
> and the ASP/JSP/PHP style template system.
> We could probably automate a conversion of our entire app from ASP style
> templating to Mason, Mojo::Template or Template::Toolkit in a week, tops.
> Tedious, but technically trivial.
> The real thing keeping us on Apache::ASP -- besides inertia -- is the ASP object
> model.
> Most of the ASP object model has direct replacements in any reasonable Perl web
> framework, such that conversion is about as trivial as converting the templating
> code.
> $Session is the only object that looks hard to convert from.  We have hundreds
> of references to that object in our app, and state management is the sort of
> thing that gets done a zillion different ways.  There probably is no existing
> Perl web framework that does it quite the same way as Apache::ASP.
> We also have to consider backwards compatibility.  If we move the app to another
> framework, we effectively fork our code base, requiring parallel development on
> any feature that has to be backported to prior versions.  (Or, we have to
> replace each existing site's Apache::ASP deployment in-place to do a version
> upgrade.)
> It might be worth taking the time it would take to convert to another web
> framework and put it into an Apache::ASP 3 effort.
> I'm feeling equivocal about that, though.  There are faster frameworks, and
> greater popularity confers direct tangible benefits.
> Feh.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message