On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: > Meaning that we do want to be compatible with 1.x?
yes, wherever possible when it doesn't cause more trouble than it is worth. > So Apache::compat is optional but not the configuration directives and a > few other bits? Apache::compat is optional because it is implemented in perl, so can be a runtime option. the C code within MP_COMPAT_1X cannot be implemented as a runtime option(s) without adding additional mess/overhead that isn't worth doing. > So should I change the docco: > >http://perl.apache.org/release/docs/2.0/user/compat/compat.html#Configuration_Files_Porting > > to say that the listed items are deprecated in 2.0, but still available? yes, that would be good. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
