emarkert at pace
May 26, 2000, 6:36 AM
Post #5 of 7
Well the timestamps are different. Here's the head portion of the
Logfile = /tmp/embperl.log, Position = 4150760, Pid = 3714
REQ: Embperl 1.2.1 starting... Fri May 26 08:55:49 2000
REQ: No Safe Eval All Opcode allowed mode = mod_perl (3)
REQ: Package = HTML::Embperl::DOC::_1
Formdata... length = 395
PERF: Time: 640 ms Evals: 661 Cache Hits: 637 (96%)
Request finished. Fri May 26 08:55:50 2000
But even though the times are different it seems that the code is not
being executed properly. With this last test I accessed the page. I
had one entry listed in this table. I then checked remove and clicked
on the submit button. I then checked the logfile and found the
EVAL< scalar(keys %RELATIVES) > 0
If this page were executing properly this should have eval'd to 0 since
there were no relatives left.
One oddity I noticed yesterday... If I fill out the form and click "Add
Another" this new entry isn't immediately shown. If I then fill out the
form and click "Add Another" the previous record is shown. This is
consistent. It seems that it's always one relative behind.
Gerald Richter wrote:
> > Hmm... I changed my httpd.conf so embperl has virtlog set and the
> > dbgLogLink option enabled.
> > I run this page and, if I'm reading the output correctly, it appears
> > that it is indeed getting this from cache. Evals: 661 Cache: 661 (100%)
> No, this only means that the precompiled Perl code is used, but the whole
> page has been executed. The question is, if you see the old values, is the
> page really executed or do you see just the cached page (which would mean
> that the link to the log file is also cached and you will get the old
> logfile entrys). You may simply look at the time stamps at the start and end
> of the logfile. Do they change, when you get the page with the old values?
Mr. Erich L. Markert emarkert [at] pace
Computer Learning Center TEL (914)422-4328
1 Martine Ave
White Plains, New York 10606-1932
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer