[Catalyst] flamage level considered harmful

[Wade.Stuart at fallon.com]

> Matt S Trout wrote:
>
> > I think waswas was just getting frustrated because you seemed to be
> > asking the same question over and over even after you'd been given
> > what seemed to him (and to me) to be an answer that pretty much
> > covered your available options.
>
> This is hardly an excuse for bordering rudeness. And I can't see any
> reason for *you*, a member of the Catalyst team, to condone this kind
> of attitude on the project's list. Unless you want Catalyst to go the
> way of so many otherwise excellent open-source project teams who
> simply cannot be bothered to market themselves.


Ok lets dead end this,  I was frustrated, and flamish.  I was at fault.

I tried to take this offline to stop this thread and the blowup it was
causing.  Please find listed below excerpts from my offline conversation
with Toby.  I have not included his responses to my offline emails because
I did not have the chance to get his approval -- but I think it is safe to
say "we have made up".



Wade Stuart/FALMSP/USA/NA/FALLON wrote on 09/29/2005 01:56:10 PM:

> Toby,
>
>  Thanks for the reply,  I appreciate your view.  I see looking back
> at all the posts now that I had what looked to be a sudden turn on
> you.  It retrospect, what happened was I had been talking with MST
> on irc about this issue thread and I brought that knowledge (that
> you had no idea about) into the conversation.  I had read his
> message as a subtle poke at you, and verified it with him on IRC.
> At the same time,  I was dealing with one of our developers here
> that basically took the same path you were taking on this issue
> (hacking the cpan distros into non maintainable junk, trying to take
> a trivial issue off of sysadmin's plate).  This had just cost me a
> few days worth of time on an upgrade to one of our systems.  I guess
> that made me take a more negative view of your prodding of the issue.
>
> I would like to apologize for my behavior,  that was truly uncalled for.
>
> Thanks!
> Wade Stuart



> Toby Corkindale <tjc at wintrmute.net>
> 09/29/05 11:37 AM
>
> To
>
> Wade.Stuart at fallon.com
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [] Cached TT w/mod_perl issue? Or just a Toby-bug?
TOBY's message body removed by ME
> -Toby
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:25:25AM -0500, Wade.Stuart at fallon.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Toby,
> >
> >       I really am not trying to flame you,  some of what I wrote was
> > facetious and some was just harsh to get the point across.  You have
asked
> > the question, been given three or four solutions of varying complexity.
I
> > suspect if you look at MST's suggestion of using a child init handler
you
> > may see that he was softly pushing you to realize that there was no
easy
> > solution.  If you were to look at what would have to be done to make a
> > childinithandler make Cat/TT/mod_perl work the way you "want it to" you
> > would have quickly seen the err in your direction (and that is why MST
has
> > not responded to your query for implementation details).   Just like
you
> > can't "solve" the problem of your sysadmins having to actually config
> > httpd.conf to run your app,  you can't "solve" this issue as it is not
> > really an issue at all.   Here are the premises that are making your
> > further requests for a more elegant solution seem silly.
> >
> > Your admins already have to configure httpd.conf,  and as they do this
the
> > httpd.conf has to be configured to run as a user and only one user can
be
> > set per conf.
> > So,  what that means is for each httpd.conf they create they can only
have
> > one user/group to "worry about" for the apps and virt servers in that
conf.
> > Also,  I would assume your apps are setup with configurable ttcache
paths
> > so they may be used on many systems flexibly.
> > So along with all of the conf work they _must_ already do you have them
add
> > the following to the httpd start script (start block):
> >
> >
> > # optional rm -rf </path/to/ttcache that they just setup in your apps
> > config>
> > mkdir </path/to/ttcache that they just setup in your apps config>
> > chown <user they just setup in httpd.conf and on the system>:<group
they
> > just setup in httpd.conf and the system> /path/to/ttcache
> > chmod 770 </path/to/ttcache that they just setup in your apps config>
> > chmod g+s </path/to/ttcache that they just setup in your apps config>
> >
> >
> > No matter where your app is installed this will work.  If you actually
took
> > a few seconds to try my solution you would have realized it does indeed
> > work on tmpfs.  It has been tested on Solaris, Linux, OBSD, NBSD, FBSD,
> > HPUX -- in fact the group sticky bit is the default behavior on bsdish
> > systems.  You can even simplify the solution to be a general solution
(one
> > block like above for all apps in the same httpd.conf) if you set all
apps
> > to use the same ttcache dir and set app unique tt ext.  There is no
other
> > easy way to do this if you must run apache as root.  The user and group
are
> > known by them when this config is done, and you are wasting time on a
> > trivial issue -- that is what is frustrating and where the harsh tone
is
> > coming from.
> >
> > Take it or leave it. Good luck to you.
> >
> >
> > Wade Stuart