Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Akins, Brian wrote: > >> We need to do something or users - including ourselves - will do the very >> bad thing of declaring CORE_PRIVATE all over the place. >> > > +1...
But; is replicating the entire API really a solution? Because for every obvious case (and your concern is a good one) someone wants to use a more obscure case (and can back it up with a legitimate case). Rather than many symbols that become slow to bind, would it make more sense to either pull aside the core config stuff so that anyone with a legitimate reason can inspect it all without CORE_PRIVATE_EVERYTHING, or should we look at something closer to ap_mpm_query (ap_core_query?) and start adding it a whole lot of stuff? Something to ponder; injecting this as-is for 2.2.10 seems rushed.
