Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 89371 invoked by uid 500); 1 May 2003 00:05:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 89360 invoked from network); 1 May 2003 00:05:12 -0000 Received: from erato.logilune.com (HELO mail.logilune.com) (195.154.174.52) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 1 May 2003 00:05:12 -0000 Received: from stason.org (localhost.logilune.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.logilune.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5321978F23; Thu, 1 May 2003 02:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3EB064BA.1090104@stason.org> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:05:14 +1000 From: Stas Bekman Organization: Hope, Humanized User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Schaefer Cc: apreq dev list Subject: Re: [apreq-2 proposal] backporting apreq_tables to APR References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Joe Schaefer wrote: > I've been thinking about ways to cut down on the > size of the libapreq-2 library, and it looks to > me like there's a way to backport the apreq table > implementation cleanly into apr_tables. Basically > all that needs to be done is to adjust the > table_entry's pointer from v to v->data and expose > the struct in the header. Of course, the APR > guys may say no, but in this case the time wasted > would be substantially less than last year's attempt > to include libapreq-2 into the httpd dist. > > Thoughts? Ask apr-dev and let's see what they have to say, before wasting any time at all. Or do you think that if a patch is sent instead of an rfc it'll be more instrumental in making the the decision in favor of this move? Assuming that they welcome this change and the next Apache version will include it. This will mean that apreq will be available on with that version or higher. Is that OK? __________________________________________________________________ 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