Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 35576 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2001 20:21:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 35565 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 20:21:28 -0000 Message-ID: <3A9D5DB0.1D0308A1@algroup.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:21:04 +0000 From: Ben Laurie X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: ap_send_http_header References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N rbb@covalent.net wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > > > > > From: > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:37 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > is a noop function. Any need to keep it? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. backwards compatability with old modules that used to call it. > > > > > > > > Why on earth can't it be a no-op'ed macro? It's not like the module > > > > can ever be a dynamic module linking to both the apache-1.3 and httpd-2.0 > > > > libraries. > > > > > > It'd be fine as a macro, but it has to be there somewhere. > > > > why does it have to be there somewhere? are you guys maintaining > > source compatibility between 1.3 and 2.0? > > Unfortunately, we are trying to. It makes no sense, because we have > already broken source compatability so many times, but this was a > requirement when we did the filtering stuff. Feh. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff ApacheCon 2001! http://ApacheCon.com/