Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 47158 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2003 19:12:03 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2003 19:12:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 44193 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2003 19:11:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 44164 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2003 19:11:49 -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 44151 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2003 19:11:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO colo.lerdorf.com) (66.198.51.121) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Nov 2003 19:11:49 -0000 Received: from rasmus2.corp.yahoo.com (rasmus2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.232.175]) by colo.lerdorf.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) with ESMTP id hAHJBrfv026249; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:11:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:11:48 -0800 (PST) From: Rasmus Lerdorf To: dev@httpd.apache.org, jim@jaguNET.com Subject: Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3 In-Reply-To: <200311171904.hAHJ4sL26682@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: References: <200311171904.hAHJ4sL26682@devsys.jaguNET.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on colo X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Glenn wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit > > > support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source > > > compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would > > > probably see rapid uptake. I can't say that thrills me but it's probably > > > true... > > > > +1 > > > > Again, unless there is 100% binary compatibility, which I do NOT > see with 1.4, then *what* is the driver for 1.4 over 2.x?? Why binary compatibility? Recompiling a module is a hell of a lot easier than rewriting it. -Rasmus