httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Issac Goldstand" <>
Subject Re: 5005thread patch (was Re: make failure for Apache::Request)
Date Tue, 08 Jan 2002 06:39:17 GMT
Is that to be understood as a motion to vote for the release the recent CVS
as 1.0? Or a last call for objections?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Schaefer" <>
To: "Issac Goldstand" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: 5005thread patch (was Re: make failure for Apache::Request)

> "Issac Goldstand" <> writes:
> > If tests are to be added, lets try to improve on the httpd portion of
> > Apache::SSI's suite, for example, NEVER works for me when I have DSOs
> > on my  server.  mod_perl doesn't even support the test suite for a DSO
> > (at least not when built via apxs).  IMHO, the first step towards
> > doing this would be  to make an Apache::Test or Test::Apache module
> > (namespace varying based on how you look at it's functionality - I
> > personally think Test::Apache is more appropriate, simply because it
> > shows that the module is part of Test, and not another mod_perl
> > module).  I'm not voulenteering, mostly for lack of time, but that's
> > my $0.02.
> >
> >   Issac
> >
> > PS - Apache::UploadMeter is now on CPAN.  The current distribution of it
> > comes bundled with a patch against libapreq-0.33  That's really, really,
> > really ugly.  Perhaps libapreq-0.34 is in order to at least get
> > out?
> I'm pretty sure the ActiveState version of libapreq was upgraded to a
> recent CVS version, which I believe includes your patch as well.  Maybe
> you should mention that in your documentation for Apache::UploadMeter.
> Maybe adding a functional test suite can be incorporated post-1.0
> release, since I agree that getting a decent and _portable_ one will
> not be very easy.  I really think the current CVS is stable enough to
> warrant a 1.X rating.  (In particular, I don't see anybody arguing for
> API changes anymore.)  Now that it's aparently possible to run with
> 5005threads, IMO the major outstanding issue is Mac OSX support.  But
> from what little I remember about the problem, I'd be content with
> listing it as a bug until someone figures out a decent workaround for
> it.
> --
> Joe Schaefer

View raw message