George
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 09:40 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Hrm.. That's not a bad idea. An ApacheHooks SAPI module sounds like the
right approach to me.
-R
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:
While most of the code in main/ is changed minimally, the changes to
the SAPI/apache stuff are pretty extensive. It may make sense to ifdef
the changes in main and create a new SAPI module for this. I bend to
the majority though. :)
On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 03:49 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Well, since 99% of the code is the same, I'd be worried about people remembering to merge fixes across. At least if it is ifdef'ed people see the code. But yes, I agree, that's not pretty either.-R On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:Either way works for me. Psychologically, I think it may get higher
exposure if it is #ifdef'd, but I have style reservations about doing
that. How has this sort of thing been done in the past? Is it
undesirable to fork the apache sapi into a new 'apache_hooks' sapi?
That may be easiest.
George
On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 05:58 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
What do you think would be the best way to make the apache_hooks code
more
accessible to people? A tarball with the relevant files that
overwrites
the standard files, or perhaps it is time to #ifdef it into the main
branch?
-Rasmus
// George Schlossnagle // Principal Consultant // OmniTI, Inc http://www.omniti.com // (c) 240.460.5234 (e) [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 1024D/1100A5A0 1370 F70A 9365 96C9 2F5E 56C2 B2B9 262F 1100 A5A0-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php