httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: MS VC++ with 2.0
Date Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:37:26 GMT
> From: []
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 12:25 PM
> Are we still using VC++ 5.0 for 2.0?  Can we upgrade to 6.0?  I don't
> think its even possible to get a 5.0 CD anymore, and I am 
> finding that I
> can't ocntribute back code, because my dsp and dsw files have been
> converted to 6.0.  This limits my usefulness as a Windows programmer
> (pretty low already, BTW).  I have run into this with the 
> current windows
> time code in APR.

>From everything I can identify, the 6.0 environment really added
only target specific platform dependencies.  If you look at the
diffs of the dsp, they should be marginal.  So far as I can tell,
5.0 will still load them quite adaquately.  I will be happy to
test that assertion if you want to email a set of 6.0 DSP's.
If a small back-port is required, I will be happy to throw together
a small perl script (a free language, not too much to ask them to
aquire it) to do just that.  If it's not required, I will assure
that saving projects in 5.0 doesn't overwrite the 6.0 formatting.

Since this is not a -free- product, in asking folks to recompile
their project, I don't see a justification to force them to 6.0.
I have yet to upgrade, simply because 6.0 offers me no significant
advantage other than JIT debugging.  I suppose in my next heavy
duty overhaul assignment of an existing 6.0 code base, I will 
bother to upgrade.  Apache is too stable to demand that :-)

I simply don't trust M$ to be consistent from service pack to
service pack, never mind version to version.  I tend to avoid
upgrades at all cost, although I always run the latest SDK to
assure they aren't trapping me with another depreciated feature.
My main reason for ignoring 6.0 is that I've already built my
own ATL overhaul, and don't care to port it forward until I
absolutely have to.

What have you found that definatively requires 6.0?  Other than
a few extra dsp options that 5.0 seems to politely ignore.  We
certainly don't need project dependencies with the new dsp/dsw
overhaul (although the 'standalone' flavor I proposed a few months
ago would have appreciated it.)

View raw message