On Nov 20, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:54:33 -0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:+ -0: jim (how is this related to ap_send_interim_response above?)It relies on ap_send_interim_response. Were you planning to review that?
Wouldn't it be best to combine those? I can't see having the 1st w/o the 2nd, and the 2nd is useless w/o the 1st :)
