At 06:53 AM 8/21/2002, Joe Schaefer wrote: >Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The apreq developers would like to see apreq-2 [*] > > > make its way into the apache 2 distribution. Here's why: > > > > Did you consider adding it to apr-util? (probably a dumb idea, but I'm > > interested in what other people think) > >apreq makes a lot of use of request_rec; my impression of >the apr and apr-util projects seemed to suggest that was a >no-no.
Yes, it isn't a fit into apr-util. Here's an odd idea Stas and I kicked around... why not port apreq2.0 into a filter? This is the idea; Folks writing a body-consuming -filter- could call the prepare fn to inject the apreq filter into the input chain. If more than one filter was interested, it would still inject itself only once. Now, as the input body is read, it would make the POST info available to any and every filter plus the handler module. The advantage? Because it's a filter, the actual POST body is still available to a CGI or other non-apreq application to consume ;-) > > I wouldn't want to see it added to httpd-2.0 or apr-util unless the > > non-API helper macros are removed from the public header file. > >Good idea. or, they are considered worthwhile enough for httpd itself [or a good minority of modules.] We have too many helpers/ways of doing things right now with the mod_ssl'ish plus the other one-off helpers in other modules. If I had time [loud booming sinister laughter here] it would be fun to reap all of the module helpers into a single header and start to standardize them. Bill
