Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:00:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@leland.Stanford.EDU>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
cc: apache-2.0-cvs@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980206134918.25143A-100000@ecstasy.localnet>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980206085644.10360A-100000@saga21.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Paul Sutton wrote:

> On 6 Feb 1998 brian@hyperreal.org wrote:
> >   +    c) radically revamped API
> >   +   
> >   +    d) just new API phases
> >   +       Brian +1
> 
> Um, I'm not sure how to vote on this. Personally I'd like to see (a) the
> function API left pretty much as it is, (b) the phase API radically
> updated (a la Alexei et al's proposal -- i.e. remove the module structure
> from modules etc), and (c) backward compatibility with modules written for
> 1.3.

Um... if you remove the module structure, it is physically impossible to
retain bacwards compatibility with modules written for 1.3. And I don't
think it's a good idea to try.

Especially not if we need to rename all our functions (see other threads).
And there are a number of other parts of the Apache API that really need
to be rethought (can we say "configuration"?) Backwards compatibility with
1.3, either for the API or the config language or anything else, has never
(in the year and a half we've been discussing it) been a high priority for
2.0.

Also, if, as certain threads here might be leaning, Apache 2.0 is
C++-based (I'm +0 personally - I don't mind C++, but the lack of legacy
support is a bit troubling), you pretty much have to throw the 1.x API
completely out the window.

-- Alexei Kosut <akosut@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *