On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
That is a very natural division.
