I think I'd prefer the new subclass over adding nph support to Registry.pm.
Sounds like a good choice to me. Or may be we should introduce registry options (e.g. via simple dir_config or a new directive).
I actually think that since Registry exists to be backwards compatible with mod_cgi, it should emulate mod_cgi as closely as it can, including the nph support. Does mod_cgi still look for /nph-/ in script names? If so, Registry should do it too.
Am I correct in thinking that this is not an issue at all if you are not using Registry, i.e. mod_perl will not send out any automatic headers if you don't ask it to?
I'd really prefer to have a better name for assbackwards if it's going to be used as a public API. Maybe we could make an alias for it that explains its purpose more clearly.
- Perrin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
