Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84179 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2007 03:18:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2007 03:18:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 67852 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2007 03:18:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 67791 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2007 03:18:00 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 67780 invoked by uid 99); 6 Feb 2007 03:18:00 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:18:00 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [207.155.248.72] (HELO tonnant.cnchost.com) (207.155.248.72) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:17:50 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (c-24-15-193-17.hsd1.il.comcast.net [24.15.193.17]) (as wrowe@rowe-clan.net) by tonnant.cnchost.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id 20AE58ED for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:17:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45C7F325.1050506@rowe-clan.net> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:16:53 -0600 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Bumping question References: <45C792F1.4060100@apache.org> <20070205230642.GA16870@redhat.com> <45C7BCC4.7060606@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <45C7BCC4.7060606@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > As 3rd parties might want to use the provider interface to provide their own storage > providers it might be worth discussing if we *should* make this a public API and should > install it via "make install". Someone probably has ;-) That said, +1 for this in trunk/httpd 2.4 for certain. Because it looks like a moving target, and we are late to the game, I wouldn't really hassle with it for httpd 2.2.