On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: > I thought of that, but why do we need to keep it compiling with httpd < > 2.0.40-dev? aren't people supposed to use 1.99_04 with 2.0.39? or are > you talking in the case when 1.99_05 is released and 2.0.40 is not?
we should continue to support older versions of httpd for as long as reasonably possible. > From what I understood there are going to be changes in the apr_time_t > representation and these wrappers are going to shield us from the > internal changes. and if I'm correct the code is going to break in any > case without these changes. understood. > there are more changes with API renames coming affecting both httpd and > apr (I think today, watch wrowe and thom's commits), should we also keep > backwards compatibility for these? we don't have to, apr already maintains backwards compat. at some point in the future we will bump the minimum required httpd version, but for the moment it needs to stay where it is. > In any case this should work, right? > > #ifndef apr_time_sec > #define apr_time_sec(time) ((apr_int64_t)((time) / APR_USEC_PER_SEC)) > #endif > #ifndef apr_time_from_sec > #define apr_time_from_sec(sec) ((apr_time_t)(sec) * APR_USEC_PER_SEC) > #endif > > where should I add these? should we have some file with all the temp > workaround that we can nuke when the Apache-2.0 API is frozen? modperl_apache_includes.h, similar to how modperl_perl_includes.h provides some compat for perl stuffs. no need for an additional file, but feel free to XXX for future removal. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
