joes 2004/07/05 10:48:06
Modified: . STATUS
Log:
We don't need an API change to support xml parsers. That's
only needed of we wanted to provide access to the xml data
through apreq_param(), which is something an individual xml
parser can facilitate by stuffing that data in the req->body
table.
Anyways we're too close to releasing a stable API to still be
considering such a drastic change. If the current API is
insufficient this idea is something folks can tackle in apreq3.
Revision Changes Path
1.61 +1 -11 httpd-apreq-2/STATUS
Index: STATUS
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-apreq-2/STATUS,v
retrieving revision 1.60
retrieving revision 1.61
diff -u -r1.60 -r1.61
--- STATUS 2 Jul 2004 16:18:37 -0000 1.60
+++ STATUS 5 Jul 2004 17:48:06 -0000 1.61
@@ -40,16 +40,6 @@
0:
-1:
- - Should we replace req->body with an iterator API (added to
- apreq_parser_t)? The rationale is that this would make xml
- parsing possible (xml data doesn't map naturally to apr_table_t).
- Xml support is a requirement for XForms. The disadvantage is that
- there may be a performance hit due to the additional abstractions.
-
- +1: joes
- 0:
- -1:
-
- We are moving from cvs to subversion as soon as it is convenient.
Vote was taken in March 2004
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=107919363000001&r=1&w=2)
and the results were as follows:
