Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44FDFD30.6070407@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:41:52 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r440337 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: ./ include/
 modules/arch/netware/
 modules/experimental/ modules/generators/ modules/http/ modules/mappers/
 modules/proxy/ modules/ssl/ server/ server/mpm/beos/
 server/mpm/experimental/event/
 server/mpm/exper...
References: <20060905130818.6506B1A981A@eris.apache.org>
 <44FDDACB.8010605@apache.org> <44FDDB52.9000700@turner.com>
 <44FDF0FF.4020706@rowe-clan.net> <44FDF57F.5010108@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <44FDF57F.5010108@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> 
> Hm, what backport are you thinking of? I thought of backporting it to 2.2.x
> not to 2.0.x. I see no general backwards compatibilty of modules written for
> 2.2.x to 2.0.x.

Well, we are talking about breaking <= 2.2.3 / > 2.2.3 right?

You are right, the new function would require an MMN bump.  I'm rethinking
this, most modules don't directly query this information, so I suppose it's
not as horrible as I thought.  It will be up to the module authors to be as
conservative or optimistic about using this API and spelling out the version
required for their module.

Nevermind, no problem with backporting to 2.2 ;-)  Just don't change the
ap_get_server_version export or function signature, and those who want
to adopt _banner will.

(The more I think about this from the principle of least (unpleasant) surprise,
the more I think the existing function's behavior shouldn't change, and the
-new- function should provide the full description no matter what the settings
for the server signature are.)