httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: Apache::args vs Apache::Request speed
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:54:19 GMT
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.

> 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 :)

Best.
-- 
Joe Schaefer


Mime
View raw message