httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <s...@stason.org>
Subject Re: Apache::args vs Apache::Request speed
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:09:14 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>Also I was only a user of Apache::Request, so I know very little about 
>>it. It's about a time I should learn its guts. Does this library work 
>>for 2.0 as is, or is there a new implementation for 2.0? I see that ToDo 
>>says that it should be ported to 2.0.
>>
> 
> I've never tried using it with 2.0, but I'd guess that it won't run
> there as-is.  But that should be our top priority after we release
> 1.0.  It's really important that we get out a release version that
> we promise not to tinker around with API-wise, so people can start
> developing derivative products without too much worry that we'll break
> their code.  Lots of people use apreq outside of the Perl community,
> and getting a 1.x release out there for the C API is very important
> to them.


Certainly.


>>So first the C lib should be ported and then the Perl glue should be 
>>written, right?
>>
> 
> Yes, exactly.  Choosing a new C API for apreq that's geared toward
> apache 2.0 AND improves upon some of the deficiencies of the current
> libapreq is an important first step, and IMO needs to be debated and
> created on the apreq-dev list NOW.  It would be great if you signed up 
> to that list so we can start discussing these issues there.  I've cc-d 
> this email to the list just in case :)

I'm on the list now. Let's start.

-- 


_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman             JAm_pH      --   Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/      mod_perl Guide   http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org  http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/


Mime
View raw message