Doug MacEachern wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: > > >>I thought of that, but why do we need to keep it compiling with httpd < >>2.0.40-dev? aren't people supposed to use 1.99_04 with 2.0.39? or are >>you talking in the case when 1.99_05 is released and 2.0.40 is not? > > > we should continue to support older versions of httpd for as long as > reasonably possible.
but what's the reason? why would anybody use an older httpd beta with the latest mod_perl? >>there are more changes with API renames coming affecting both httpd and >>apr (I think today, watch wrowe and thom's commits), should we also keep >>backwards compatibility for these? > > > we don't have to, apr already maintains backwards compat. at some point > in the future we will bump the minimum required httpd version, but for the > moment it needs to stay where it is. cool >>where should I add these? should we have some file with all the temp >>workaround that we can nuke when the Apache-2.0 API is frozen? > > > modperl_apache_includes.h, similar to how modperl_perl_includes.h provides > some compat for perl stuffs. no need for an additional file, but feel > free to XXX for future removal. thanks, done p.s. I've added one more macro, since I use it in Scoreboard.xs (which btw, still awaits your +1 ;) __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
