httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: DSO Patch 1 of 3 (+ commentary!)
Date Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:19:29 GMT
Exactly what I was planning to do :)

Only problem (and it's not really) is finding a way to build a test program
without the system knowing how to build dynamic modules!  Chicken and egg
anyone?  It's not hard to solve, but the quick way might not be as elegant
as is possible.

d.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rbb@apache.org>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Cc: <jim@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: DSO Patch 1 of 3 (+ commentary!)


>
> Just take Jon Travis' patch and move things from mic/* to a new directory.
> The basic work is done already.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, David Reid wrote:
>
> > OK.  I'll start doing it tonight unless Ryan or someone lese beats me to
it.
> >
> > d.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com>
> > To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 3:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: DSO Patch 1 of 3 (+ commentary!)
> >
> >
> > > +1 !
> > >
> > > David Reid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still think that we should look at moving the DSO stuff into
> > lib/apr/dso.
> > > > If we start doing that now, and of course getting a test program to
make
> > > > sure it works!!, then we can move the stuff out of the main apache
code.
> > > > When we're ready to build and use dynamic modules then we'll have
the
> > > > apparatus built, just need to start using it :)
> > > >
> > > > d.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>
> > > > To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 12:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: DSO Patch 1 of 3 (+ commentary!)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 12:11:12PM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall
wrote:
> > > > > > > > Also, will
> > > > > > > > dsotool support backward compatibility with libtool?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it cannot. Because dsotool's functionality is a _subset_
of
> > > > > > > libtool's functionality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I meant to ask about backward compatibility with the subset,
honest.
> > > > > > :). This should be all we need.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 on looking into dropping libtool and using dsotool *later* when
> > Ralf
> > > > > has released something. Until then, I don't think we need to
bother.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hrm. This does have an effect on the origination of this thread:
the
> > DSO
> > > > > patches and use of libtdl. Should we use that for now, or just go
with
> > the
> > > > > status quo for a while? hrm...
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > -g
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
===========================================================================
> > >    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]
http://www.jaguNET.com/
> > >                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom                        rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message