So I will take this course of action after 4.3.0 is branched. Any
objections?
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
Hrm.. That's not a bad idea. An ApacheHooks SAPI module sounds
like the
right approach to me.
Would it be possible to load them both (ApacheHooks and mod_php) at
the same time?
Edin
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
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
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
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.
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
