Re: Looking beyond 1.3: Kernalization andrequirements proposals.

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Adam Thompson <..hidden..> wrote:
> One big caveat: the use of anything other than ActivePerl on Windows.
> There's no deep, unavoidable reason that Perl+IIS can't be used under Windows - the mod_rewrite functionality can be done in other, almost as easy, ways.

The big issue with ActivePerl is we can't redistribute it.
ActiveState has repeatedly said they won't entertain the idea of open
source projects redistributing their software....  I would really like
to have a good installer which installs all the dependencies on
Windows.  ActiveState makes that impossible with their products.  When
I asked, they said, "Strawberry Perl is better for open source
projects."

I would not be adverse to accepting bugfixes regarding ActivePerl.
But I can only test so many platforms, and I don't usually have a
Windows system handy....   (Hint:  Community opportunity here!)

Actually, iirc, IIS passes the variable down in the way we expect it.
No need for mod_rewrite.  The data I was looking at was from 2004 so
something may have changed, but I coded it that way based on looking
at how both Apache and IIS handled things.

Even if something has changed there, I would be surprised if there
isn't some way to address it.   There might be mild compatibility
issues, but we can troubleshoot them on such an installation.

>For that matter, if 2.0 is a major rewrite, I'm of the opinion it should support multiple hosting paradigms: multiple web servers,
> multiple Perl-runners (CGI, FastCGI, mod_perl, PerlScript [under IIS]).

Multiple authentication possibilities, multiple web servers, etc.  If
anyone wants to step up to do QA on such environments, I am more than
happy to help :-)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers