Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org> 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