On Wednesday 15 February 2006 09:16, Mads Toftum wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 12:59:34AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > I would continue to veto any single line containing apr_memcache[...] in > > httpd > > so long as there isn't a trivial backend as part of apr-util that users > > can deploy without obtaining, and installing, a memcached process. > > By that reasoning, all ldap auth and mod_dbd should also be vetoed...
... and above all, mod_ssl! > and how about all dbm (except sdbm) sdbm exactly meets his requirement, yesno? However, the issue in httpd is different, because we have a well-established mechanism for dealing with external and third-party modules. That sounds more like when my offer of contributing mod_proxy_html to the core was declined due to the dependency on libxml2: it has flourished anyway:-) -- Nick Kew
