httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject RE: am I dreaming?
Date Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:43:01 GMT
No module writer would write the necessary correct code to do this,
especially considering it would require them to predict the future. 

Dean

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Randy Terbush wrote:

> I suggested a few weeks back (or was it months) that we should not
> consider a mismatch in MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER to be fatal. This decision
> really should be left to the module vendor. The module should know
> what range of MAGIC_NUMBER it can accept and decide to participate as
> a registered handler or not. That simple change would solve a lot of
> these issues.
> 
> I still think that little changes like the one desribed should be
> MINOR number changes. That was my intent when I added
> MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MINOR.
> 
> If we can agree on a way to deal with this, I would be happy to work
> on it.
> 
> -Randy
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
> > [mailto:new-httpd-owner@apache.org]On
> > Behalf Of Vince Bonfanti
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 6:54 AM
> > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: am I dreaming?
> >
> >
> > On 3/23/99 11:21 PM, Thomas Reilly wrote:
> > >
> > >After a more diligent scanning I noticed that the
> > >MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR was changed because METHODS and M_INVALID
> > >were redefined.  Maybe these changes were important bug
> > fixes but they
> > >seem to just be cosmetic to me, in which case I feel like
> > they could
> > >have been deferred to a later Apache version.
> > >
> > >Is backwards compatibility of precompiled DSO modules not something
> > >that Apache aims to maintain?  It seems like a very
> > desirable feature
> > >to me but the fact there have been 20 changes to
> > >MODULE_MAGIC_NUMBER_MAJOR since 1.3 left beta leads me to
> > believe that
> > >I'm the only one that feels that way.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Tom Reilly
> > >Live Software, Inc
> > >http://www.livesoftware.com
> > >
> >
> > We also "feel the pain" of this lack of compatibility,
> > though perhaps not
> > as strongly. We distribute source for our product on UNIX platforms
> > because recompiling is a relatively painless process for
> > the end user.
> >
> > On Window NT it's a different story: most end users don't
> > have the tools
> > installed to compile anything, and if they did, the
> > complexity of the
> > build process is anything but trivial. Therefore, we have to ship
> > binaries for Windows NT, and have had to to build a new
> > version for each
> > Apache dot release.
> >
> > We would also like to see backwards compatibility of
> > precompiled DSO
> > modules a higher priority.
> >
> > Vince Bonfanti
> > New Atlanta Communications, LLC
> > http://www.newatlanta.com/
> >
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message