httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Issac Goldstand" <mar...@beamartyr.net>
Subject Re: [rfc] a few milestones (was Re: Updating the Website?)
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:52:46 GMT
My $0.02:
  I think we're making too many new root namespaces for modperl2: Apache2::
APR:: ModPerl:: etc
I think that we should start taking one of those as a "roof" as to not
create too much confusing clutter; after all, ALL of these namespaces are
logically connected because they ALL require mod_perl2, so IMHO they should
be grouped together, not spread all around CPAN.  Plus, think about
third-party developers.  They're gonna go bananas trying to figure out which
of these new namespaces to start developing for.  So I'm against making
either an Apreq:: or an APREQ:: suite.  I think we sould either use
Apahe2::Request , Cookie, etc (or transparent Apache:: mp1 and mp2 aware
modules) or Apache2 (or whatever root namesspace) ::Apreq::...

  Issac
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stas Bekman" <stas@stason.org>
To: "Joe Schaefer" <joe@sunstarsys.com>
Cc: "apreq dev list" <apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [rfc] a few milestones (was Re: Updating the Website?)


> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>Won't the same approach as used in apreq-1.x work?
> >
> >
> > I don't think so.  IMO libapreq-2 (the core) should have only
> > one build system per platform, not two systems (perl & configure)
> > like apreq-1 has.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >>I also don't quite get why do we need c-modules for the perl glue
testing.
> >
> >
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > We don't need c-modules for that.  We need c-modules to test the
> > code in env/, since the unit tests in t/ can't do that.  It just
> > seems convenient to put those environment tests in glue/perl since
> > they require Apache::Test.
>
> Still, we better separate these, folks that don't need mod_perl shouldn't
have
> a requirement to build it just to run tests. We can have two test suits.
>
> >>I don't remember when we have discussed this, but won't ApReq:: read
> >>better?
> >
> > Not if it means we keep changing the preferred capitalization every
> > few months :-).  Me no like StudlyCaps for perl modules, so I'm -0
> > on ApReq.
>
> We don't have any perl modules yet, so it's not like we have this problem
yet.
> It's not about capitalization, but ambiguity. APREQ:: to me means an
> abbreviation of A.P.R.E.Q which is not the case. (e.g. APR::)
>
> Apreq is fine with me too.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
> http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
> mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
> http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com
>


Mime
View raw message