Re: Re: apache_hooks

So I will take this course of action after 4.3.0 is branched. Any objections? George On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 09:40 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

Hrm.. That's not a bad idea. An ApacheHooks SAPI module sounds like the right approach to me. -R On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:

While most of the code in main/ is changed minimally, the changes to the SAPI/apache stuff are pretty extensive. It may make sense to ifdef the changes in main and create a new SAPI module for this. I bend to the majority though. :) On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 03:49 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

Well, since 99% of the code is the same, I'd be worried about people remembering to merge fixes across. At least if it is ifdef'ed people see the code. But yes, I agree, that's not pretty either. -R On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, George Schlossnagle wrote:

Either way works for me. Psychologically, I think it may get higher exposure if it is #ifdef'd, but I have style reservations about doing that. How has this sort of thing been done in the past? Is it undesirable to fork the apache sapi into a new 'apache_hooks' sapi? That may be easiest. George On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 05:58 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

What do you think would be the best way to make the apache_hooks code more accessible to people? A tarball with the relevant files that overwrites the standard files, or perhaps it is time to #ifdef it into the main branch? -Rasmus

// George Schlossnagle // Principal Consultant

// OmniTI, Inc          http://www.omniti.com

// (c) 240.460.5234 (e) george@omniti.com // 1024D/1100A5A0 1370 F70A 9365 96C9 2F5E 56C2 B2B9 262F 1100 A5A0

-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php