perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: outstanding rename items
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:10:31 GMT
Geoffrey Young wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>>Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>>>Due to the renaming, methods such as C<Apache-E<gt>server>
>>>>are now called as C<Apache2-E<gt>server>
>>>I think Apache->request/Apache2->request is probably a better example to
>>>use, since it's much more common.  or use them both.  likewise in the
>>>mention below.
>>the only reason Apache->request was kept in the mp2 API is because too
>>many things were using it (like and I was trying to avoid
>>enforcing changes on users. If you are renaming it anyway, I'd rather
>>see it move into the Apache::RequestRec namespace (same for
>>Apache->server) which should eliminate the top level Apache(2) namespace
> yeah, I started to wonder about this as I began to port over and
> ended up with lots of calls like
>   my $r = $ENV{MOD_PERL_API_VERSION} ? Apache2->request : Apache->request;
> so maybe abandoning these two makes sense if we're going to rename them
> completely.
> on the other hand, I was wonding whether it made sense to continue to
> support Apache2->request _and_ Apache->request.  since Apache:: in this
> instance is a virtual class the reasons that forced the change don't really
> apply, so we could just as well keep it.  on the other hand, it's all alone
> out there and not comsistent with the rest of the API.

If you change the API completely at least make it consistent.

> stas, perrin had also mentioned the idea that since we were moving from
> Apache::OK to Apache2::OK (again with a virtual namespace) it might make
> more sense to use Apache::Const::OK instead.  I guess that's lots of typing,
> but uses always have OK if they want.
> thoughts?

Sure, go for it.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message