From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA26962; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:18:29 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA26953 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:18:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from muscadet.inria.fr (muscadet.inria.fr [128.93.8.12]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5L7ISSH028019 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:18:28 +0200 Received: by muscadet.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 11404) id E3E287A59; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:18:26 +0200 (CEST) To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] mod_caml's bytecode restriction due to Apache or just CGI dyn'linking? Reply-To: James Leifer From: James Leifer References: <20040620230758.GA13051@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:18:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20040620230758.GA13051@redhat.com> (Richard Jones's message of "Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:07:58 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40D68BC4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml's:01 dynlink:01 caml's:01 model:01 dynamically:01 statically:01 glue:01 cmo:01 caml:01 caml:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 writes:01 native:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Richard Jones writes: >> So... Is the limitation to use bytecode due to the desire to support >> *dynamic* linking of CGIs or for other reasons? > > Basically, yes. We would need a version of Dynlink supporting native > code. Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply! I'm confused whether "Bassically, yes" includes the part after my "or" or not. Let me see if I have this right: in order to support mod_caml's current model of loading in new .cmo files, dynamic linking is necessary, hence native is out of the question. However, if one didn't want to *dynamically* load CGIs but statically link the CGIs together with the mod_caml glue, is caml dynamic linking still necessary for any *other* part of the mod_caml's design (e.g. the interaction between mod_caml and Apache)? Best, -James ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners