> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we
didn't
> > freeze this one. If an API needs to change, then it should be
allowed
> > to change. The important thing is that we don't change APIs just
for
> > the sake
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> My concern is that when we make all of the renames to APR (or
> any other changes), we'll be killing our third-parties who tried to
Simple renames I can handle. That's what apr_compat.h is for. Other
changes should be much more scrutinized IMO.
-
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we didn't
> freeze this one. If an API needs to change, then it should be allowed
> to change. The important thing is that we don't change APIs just for
> the sake of changin
> > A much more important question that we need to start thinking
> > now about is how set are we on this module API? Are we going to
> > allow changes to go into 2.0 that require module authors to
> > modify their code? I believe I'm pretty dead set against that.
> > 2.0 API is now closed. If
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
>out before thinking about what comes next. Should we open 2.1
>now? I don't think so. But, should we in three or four months?
>Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.
>
I think we also need a more solid de
"Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
> out before thinking about what comes next. Should we open 2.1
> now? I don't think so. But, should we in three or four months?
> Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.
Good... You
