httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r160645 - httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
Date Fri, 06 May 2005 00:36:11 GMT
Greg Ames <> writes:

> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:


>> So I'm effectively arguing that apreq should be the arbiter of bodies.
>> If the subrequest calls apreq API's (rather than trusting headers
>> which should be handled in our HTTP filter stack) then everything
>> would be goodness.  And the included body shouldn't 'snarf' that
>> post content leaving nothing for the main handler.  apreq would
>> be a good broker to distribute it.
> [gregames@gandalf httpd-2.1]$ grep -ri apreq .
> [gregames@gandalf httpd-2.1]$
> doesn't appear to be stable enough for 2.0 at present.

I'd like to help see httpd 2.2 + libapreq2 integrated, but it's sort of 
tricky for us over in apreq because we have a very complex autmake-based
build system.  I think everyone'd be happier if apreq weaned
itself off of automake and towards the build system used by apr-util,
but at present we don't have a lot of auto-foo guys floating around 
over on apreq-dev@.  What makes things *very* complicated for apreq, IMO,
is the CPAN distribution channel that mod_perl'ers expect from us.

Joe Schaefer

View raw message