httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Young <>
Subject Re: FW: Help with Apache::Request module
Date Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:23:23 GMT

>>but in any case that's not exactly the same thing.  
> Can you explain what the difference _should_ be?

oh, sorry.  what I meant was that new() doesn't behave the same as
instance().  the code you had in mind just makes them aliases.  but that may
be sufficient if the below is true.

>>is there a technical reason why instance() is gone from libapreq2?
> Not at all-  I'm +1 for supporting it, somehow.  It's just that
> since Apache::Request::new() always fetches the cached data now, 
> I'm not sure what role Apache::Request::instance() would play.

ah!  I hadn't realized that the data is always cached.  if that's true, then
I don't see a reason to support instance() specifically - the port to
libapreq2 is fairly straightforward.

just one thing of interest.  if the client posts 10MB (assuming it passes
the configured POST limit) then all 10MB are always cached?  is this
configurable, so that end-users can specify whether this is desirable for
their application?  part of the reason we introduced instance() (over
overriding new() ) was to let users have a choice in the matter.

anyway, I guess the answer to future questions about instance() is that the
functionality has been integrated into new(), making instance() unnecessary
in libapreq2.  not merely that instance() hasn't been ported or isn't around

I can patch Request_pod to that effect if I have my info correct.


View raw message