httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Was there any concrete decision on apreq?
Date Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:11:07 GMT
In a nutshell the long term goal has always been to get the c parts of apreq incorporated into
httpd distributions so the perl parts can ship with modperl.  This is still along those lines.
 In order to continue to expose the cool cgi code that Issac added to libapreq we need to
ensure there is an actual external library still when we ship with httpd otherwise we lose
the modular features we spent so much time designing as apreq would then be limited to httpd
modules only.  I'd like to see it serve the entire gamut of web apps including fast cgi. 
That's what my ongoing plans are for the httpd project.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Steve Hay <> wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what the proposal here is, but as long as the
> perl glue (Apache2::Request et al) still exists on CPAN and can be
> built in the usual manner then that sounds fine.
> At the moment it contains a number of XS modules (APR::Request::*)
> which variously link against libapreq2.lib (.dll) and mod_apreq2.lib
> (.so), which are also built as part of the same build process. If
> those XS modules will in the future link against httpd (libhttpd.lib?)
> instead then I can't think of any problem with that.
>> On 24 February 2015 at 11:02, Issac Goldstand <> wrote:
>> I think nothing.
>> Most mod_perl users (I think) install apreq via Apache2::Request.  That
>> can continue to be maintained on CPAN, as is, linking against httpd
>> instead of mod_apreq
>> Or do you forsee a problem here?
>>> On 2/24/2015 9:56 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
>>> What would this mean for mod_perl users? I, and I assume many
>>> others(?), still use the perl glue part of libapreq in mod_perl
>>> software.
>>> I only just spotted this thread, and just wondered how such mod_perl
>>> users will be affected, if at all.
>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 03:24, Joseph Schaefer <>
>>>> I still want to do that just lacking tuits
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Eric Covener <>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gregg Smith <>
>>>>>> Am I missing something? Did I miss a boatload of email where any
>>>>>> decision was made?
>>>>> I don't think you have missed anything. I assume very few people have
>>>>> any clue how it's integrated/used today.  The last thing I have in my
>>>>> mail archive is joes proposal to pull the library part back out and
>>>>> make it available in a way similar to mod_ldap.

View raw message