httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Hay <>
Subject Re: Was there any concrete decision on apreq?
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:53:15 GMT
I'm not sure exactly what the proposal here is, but as long as the
perl glue (Apache2::Request et al) still exists on CPAN and can be
built in the usual manner then that sounds fine.

At the moment it contains a number of XS modules (APR::Request::*)
which variously link against libapreq2.lib (.dll) and mod_apreq2.lib
(.so), which are also built as part of the same build process. If
those XS modules will in the future link against httpd (libhttpd.lib?)
instead then I can't think of any problem with that.

On 24 February 2015 at 11:02, Issac Goldstand <> wrote:
> I think nothing.
> Most mod_perl users (I think) install apreq via Apache2::Request.  That
> can continue to be maintained on CPAN, as is, linking against httpd
> instead of mod_apreq
> Or do you forsee a problem here?
> On 2/24/2015 9:56 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
>> What would this mean for mod_perl users? I, and I assume many
>> others(?), still use the perl glue part of libapreq in mod_perl
>> software.
>> I only just spotted this thread, and just wondered how such mod_perl
>> users will be affected, if at all.
>> On 24 February 2015 at 03:24, Joseph Schaefer <> wrote:
>>> I still want to do that just lacking tuits
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Eric Covener <> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gregg Smith <> wrote:
>>>>> Am I missing something? Did I miss a boatload of email where any firm
>>>>> decision was made?
>>>> I don't think you have missed anything. I assume very few people have
>>>> any clue how it's integrated/used today.  The last thing I have in my
>>>> mail archive is joes proposal to pull the library part back out and
>>>> make it available in a way similar to mod_ldap.

View raw message