On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:12:20PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Nov 16, 2003, at 3:57 PM, Glenn wrote: > > > >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. > > > > Ok, that's true, but that *really* does not translate to > a downpour of disenfranchised 1.3 developers begging for 1.3 > to be re-opened :)
Well, you asked for an example. :) The patch is required in my environment. [snip] > Interesting, but if the usage of APR was that deep within 1.3, then > wouldn't backwards compatibility with 1.3 go out the window. > I'm guessing this is your 1.4/1.5 branch. But that doesn't help > the 1.3 people at all, since (if I'm understanding you correctly) > all this does is create another Apache version... > > I may be misunderstanding you... or do you mean just have > Apache 1.3 "APR aware" and not for 1.3 to *use* it per se, > but allow for modules to call APR... That would be useful, > but anything deeper than that would scare people I think... > APR is just as "new" as Apache 2.0. The latter. Only that it be available so that I can spend my time developing with Apache2 paradigms and have most of them translate to usefullness on Apache 1.3. Sort of a like a forward-compatibility to 2.0 in the same way that ap_compat.h is a backward-compatibility from 2.0 to 1.3. I think both Rasmus and I have voiced that there needs to be a better migration path for third-party developers to port modules to 2.x. Migrating a stock Apache 1.3 to Apache 2.0 is trivial, but this is not the case when legacy third-party modules are involved. Cheers, Glenn
