Re: docs are still half-missing
Jonathan Vanasco wrote: > just a heads up: This was fixed in SVN and will be fixed on the website with 2.08. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 323.219.4708 Consultant / http://p6m7g8.net/Resume/resume.shtml Senior Software Engineer - TicketMaster - http://ticketmaster.com 1024D/A79997FA F357 0FDD 2301 6296 690F 6A47 D55A 7172 A799 97F "In all that I've done wrong I know I must have done something right to deserve a hug every morning and butterfly kisses at night."
Re: apreq -> apr-util
david reid wrote: > While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the > functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually > available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the > library code that I feel really belong in apr-util. Well, the proposal is a little too fuzzy to add meaningful thoughts right now, but I've always been a fan of bringing apreq into httpd 2.x. And you are absolutely right, some of the features in apreq are really more generic than httpd, and I'd agree some of them would be a good fit in apr-util. But the next question is - which API's do you propose are generic enough for apr-util? Bill
Re: apreq -> apr-util
david reid wrote: While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the library code that I feel really belong in apr-util. I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may be a win for them as well. I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be also minimal. As a casual list reader who uses/distributes libapreq with his own project: http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/RApacheProject I welcome any collaboration that could further the idea of distributing libapreq with apache httpd (just as apr and apr-util are distributed with httpd) or even melding libapreq into apr-util. -- Jeffrey Horner Computer Systems Analyst School of Medicine 615-322-8606 Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University
apreq -> apr-util
While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the library code that I feel really belong in apr-util. I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may be a win for them as well. I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be also minimal. -- david http://feathercast.org/
