httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: win32 and <Perl>
Date Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:46:18 GMT
Go ahead, and then someone can put static on every other function that
you're not using to stop you from using any more you're not supposed to be
:) 

Dean

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Doug MacEachern wrote:

> I have a feeling I'm not going to get any +1's on this patch.  I know it
> wouldn't be a warm, fuzzy +1 for anyone (including myself), but it doesn't
> break anything, just makes a few functions visible to the module dlls.  <Perl>
> configuration under win32 would make lots of folks happy, and it's a big
> feature that none of the other win32 HTTP servers have to offer :-)  Any
> strong objections to me committing this patch?
> 
> -Doug
> 
> Doug MacEachern wrote:
> 
> > Dean Gaudet wrote:
> >
> > > srm_command_loop I'm definately FOR adding to the api, that's an
> > > oversight...
> > >
> > > But I'm confused, I thought that once we put in the pcfg stuff you
> > > wouldn't need things like limit_section() and init_virtual_host() and
> > > whatnot.  Can't you just pcfg_open_custom/srm_command_loop for those?
> >
> > We have started using pcfg_open_custom for feeding strings to the config
> > gears, which works quite nice.  But, the direct Perl variable -> config
> > mapping doesn't use pcfg_open_custom yet, and would require a considerable
> > amount of work to do so, including maintaining backwards compatibility w/
> > 1.2.x.  In other words, the <Perl> stuff is currently stable, heaps of
> > people rely on it.  Only a few API_EXPORTs and magic, the feature is
> > available to win32 users and presumably just as stable as it is under unix.
> > <Perl> sections under win32 could hook into the windows registry and other
> > funky stuff.  Since some of these functions are clearly not part of the
> > "API", how about a
> >
> > #define CORE_EXPORT API_EXPORT
> >
> > or something like that, which does the same as API_EXPORT, but doesn't
> > advertise itself as "public" to readers of the source code?
> >
> > -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message