On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:33:13AM +0000, Nick Kew wrote: > ... and above all, mod_ssl!
Ehrm, no - that doesn't follow from that - since mod_ssl doesn't require a seperate backend. > > > and how about all dbm (except sdbm) > > sdbm exactly meets his requirement, yesno? > Yes. which is why I said except sdbm, since that is local. > 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:-) > My reason for responding was the comment that he would veto any single line of apr_memcache going into httpd without a test _backend_ in apr-util. You're talking about interfacing directly to external libs from httpd, which is different (and not really a topic for [EMAIL PROTECTED]) vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
