On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:37:19PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > As noted many times, 1.3 is actively maintained but not > actively developed. To be honest, I've not seen that > many people saying "I *really* want to add this to 1.3!". > If they had, chances are good that I'd +1 (not that what > goes into 1.3 is my decision...).
Oh, how about my (effectively) 2-line patch which adds vhost to the error log, which I have posted to this list NO LESS THAN 6 TIMES and spaced out over the past 6 MONTHS in three different formats, using a global, expanding server_rec, and with #defines. Pardon me for being PO'd and thinking that there is NO DEVELOPMENT (besides critical security fixes) happening on 1.3. > I'm curious how a 1.4 or whatever would make it "easier" for > people to make that transition. What would 1.4 have or be > for that to happen? I have some different ideas. One is to distribute APR with 1.3 so that modules developers could incrementally move their modules to APR. Personal experience: I am writing a module for 1.3 and 2.0 and the only code reuse I manage to achieve is where I said 'screw both the Apache 1.3 and Apache 2.0 models' and decided that my module would only work on POSIX compliant systems, and wrote my own POSIX compliant socket routines. If I had access to APR in 1.3, I could maintaining my module with 2.0 paradigms and would be able to keep my module working with 1.3 with much less additional effort. Please note: I'm not in favor of implementing major changes to 1.3 that are not in-line with Apache 2.x, but am in favor of continuing bug fixes and making the eventual transition to 2.x easier. Cheers, Glenn
