sub MyDirective { my($self, $parms, $args) = @_; my $info = $parms->info; ^^^^
Wouldn't $parms->cmd_data make more sense ?
+1
Especially since parms->info on the C level is something else. It's really parms->info->cmd_data.
while our code interface into it is parms->info->cmd_data that's not the way a C programmer would use it. over in C land the directive handler interface looks exactly like the current perl interface. for instance, from core.c:
static const char *set_server_string_slot(cmd_parms *cmd, void *dummy, const char *arg) { /* This one's pretty generic... */
int offset = (int)(long)cmd->info;
so, unless I'm missing something, I don't see the reason to change this interface at all.
What you are missing is that a user is passing that data using the 'cmd_data' hash key, so trying to retrieve it with info() is not the best choice of the interface, IMHO. I think the key and the retrieving function need to match. If you want it to be 'info', then it should be 'info' in both places.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
