> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Leggett [mailto:minf...@sharp.fm]
> Sent: Sonntag, 8. März 2015 16:47
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Cc: apreq-...@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Was there any concrete decision on apreq?
>
> On 08 Mar 2015, at 9:11 AM,
apreq is really both Graham, a httpd module and a library.But what I'd like to
see is the apreq stuff in the server'score put into a separate library and have
either httpd orthe apreq module link to it.
Unfortunately the existing build system for apreq is automakebased, and I don't
have much kno
On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> For ages library functions for httpd have ended up in APR, but this isn’t
> ideal - APR is a portability layer, and even though code is being accepted
> that “works with APR”, in reality we really need a libhttpd library that can
> provide
On 08 Mar 2015, at 9:11 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> In a nutshell the long term goal has always been to get the c parts of apreq
> incorporated into httpd distributions so the perl parts can ship with
> modperl. This is still along those lines. In order to continue to expose
> the cool cgi
In a nutshell the long term goal has always been to get the c parts of apreq
incorporated into httpd distributions so the perl parts can ship with modperl.
This is still along those lines. In order to continue to expose the cool cgi
code that Issac added to libapreq we need to ensure there is
I'm not sure exactly what the proposal here is, but as long as the
perl glue (Apache2::Request et al) still exists on CPAN and can be
built in the usual manner then that sounds fine.
At the moment it contains a number of XS modules (APR::Request::*)
which variously link against libapreq2.lib (.dll
I think nothing.
Most mod_perl users (I think) install apreq via Apache2::Request. That
can continue to be maintained on CPAN, as is, linking against httpd
instead of mod_apreq
Or do you forsee a problem here?
On 2/24/2015 9:56 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
> What would this mean for mod_perl users? I,
What would this mean for mod_perl users? I, and I assume many
others(?), still use the perl glue part of libapreq in mod_perl
software.
I only just spotted this thread, and just wondered how such mod_perl
users will be affected, if at all.
On 24 February 2015 at 03:24, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> I
I still want to do that just lacking tuits
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>> Am I missing something? Did I miss a boatload of email where any firm
>> decision was made?
>
>
> I don't think you ha
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Am I missing something? Did I miss a boatload of email where any firm
> decision was made?
I don't think you have missed anything. I assume very few people have
any clue how it's integrated/used today. The last thing I have in my
mail archiv
Hi,
I've been stalling on the traditional windows build adding apreq because
I never saw any concrete decision on if we were going to add it to the
core libhttpd or keep it a separate library (libapreq) as it has been
for years. I've searched my inbox and looked over all the messages about
it
11 matches
Mail list logo
