Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 11188 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2000 19:03:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 11176 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2000 19:03:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:03:47 -0800 (PST) From: Dean Gaudet To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: binary backwards compatability. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N -1. i've already given many reasons. On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > Okay, so I had a thought about backwards binary compat. This forces > module writers who want backwards binary compat to jump through a hoop, > but it doesn't affect module writers who don't want it. it does too affect module writers who don't want it -- it affects everyone by wasting RAM, and stifling innovation. Dean