On 3/31/2010 4:46 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Why not just change the signature of ap_process_resource_config() ? > What is the anticipated use of these functions? (IOW, how much pain > does it introduce?)
I see an advantage of two API's if we revert ap_process_resource_config() to what it was supposed to be, a processor for a single config file. Then ap_process_resource_config_ex() is really ap_process_resource_configs_matching() or something like that.
