Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 72510 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2003 01:29:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 72261 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 01:29:13 -0000 X-Epoch: 1053480558 X-Sasl-enc: k9yZwPlAri0wj+RNR2Bxog Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 21:28:52 -0400 (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Est_=28heure_d'=E9t=E9=29?=) From: Joshua Slive To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: apache-modules@covalent.net Subject: Re: Who decides what modules go in core release? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: X-X-Sender: slive@www.fastmail.fm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 20 May 2003, Marc M. Adkins wrote: > I feel like one or both of these modules should be part of the core release > at some point. The benefits are great, the code is written in at least one > case, and there shouldn't be any conflict or breaking of other features. Back when Dean Gaudet was around these parts, he used to shoot down proposals like these with some regularity. The basic argument is that httpd.conf is a configuration file, not a programming language. If you need a programming language to generate your config files, there are many preprocessors built for that purpose (eg. m4). Of course, without Dean around, you might be able to sneak this in anyway ;-) Joshua.