I'm not sure exactly what the proposal here is, but as long as the perl glue (Apache2::Request et al) still exists on CPAN and can be built in the usual manner then that sounds fine.
At the moment it contains a number of XS modules (APR::Request::*) which variously link against libapreq2.lib (.dll) and mod_apreq2.lib (.so), which are also built as part of the same build process. If those XS modules will in the future link against httpd (libhttpd.lib?) instead then I can't think of any problem with that. On 24 February 2015 at 11:02, Issac Goldstand <[email protected]> wrote: > I think nothing. > > Most mod_perl users (I think) install apreq via Apache2::Request. That > can continue to be maintained on CPAN, as is, linking against httpd > instead of mod_apreq > > Or do you forsee a problem here? > > On 2/24/2015 9:56 AM, Steve Hay wrote: >> What would this mean for mod_perl users? I, and I assume many >> others(?), still use the perl glue part of libapreq in mod_perl >> software. >> >> I only just spotted this thread, and just wondered how such mod_perl >> users will be affected, if at all. >> >> On 24 February 2015 at 03:24, Joseph Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I still want to do that just lacking tuits >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gregg Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Am I missing something? Did I miss a boatload of email where any firm >>>>> decision was made? >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think you have missed anything. I assume very few people have >>>> any clue how it's integrated/used today. The last thing I have in my >>>> mail archive is joes proposal to pull the library part back out and >>>> make it available in a way similar to mod_ldap. >
