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: [rfc] a few milestones (was Re: Updating the Website?)
Date Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:18:06 GMT
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