Greg Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[...] >> So I'm effectively arguing that apreq should be the arbiter of bodies. >> If the subrequest calls apreq API's (rather than trusting headers >> which should be handled in our HTTP filter stack) then everything >> would be goodness. And the included body shouldn't 'snarf' that >> post content leaving nothing for the main handler. apreq would >> be a good broker to distribute it. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] httpd-2.1]$ grep -ri apreq . > [EMAIL PROTECTED] httpd-2.1]$ > > doesn't appear to be stable enough for 2.0 at present. I'd like to help see httpd 2.2 + libapreq2 integrated, but it's sort of tricky for us over in apreq because we have a very complex autmake-based build system. I think everyone'd be happier if apreq weaned itself off of automake and towards the build system used by apr-util, but at present we don't have a lot of auto-foo guys floating around over on [EMAIL PROTECTED] What makes things *very* complicated for apreq, IMO, is the CPAN distribution channel that mod_perl'ers expect from us. -- Joe Schaefer
