Stas Bekman wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> Due to the renaming, methods such as C<Apache-E<gt>server>
>>> are now called as C<Apache2-E<gt>server>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think Apache->request/Apache2->request is probably a better example to
>> use, since it's much more common. or use them both. likewise in the
>> other
>> mention below.
>
>
> the only reason Apache->request was kept in the mp2 API is because too
> many things were using it (like CGI.pm) and I was trying to avoid
> enforcing changes on users. If you are renaming it anyway, I'd rather
> see it move into the Apache::RequestRec namespace (same for
> Apache->server) which should eliminate the top level Apache(2) namespace
> completely.
yeah, I started to wonder about this as I began to port CGI.pm over and
ended up with lots of calls like
my $r = $ENV{MOD_PERL_API_VERSION} ? Apache2->request : Apache->request;
so maybe abandoning these two makes sense if we're going to rename them
completely.
on the other hand, I was wonding whether it made sense to continue to
support Apache2->request _and_ Apache->request. since Apache:: in this
instance is a virtual class the reasons that forced the change don't really
apply, so we could just as well keep it. on the other hand, it's all alone
out there and not comsistent with the rest of the API.
stas, perrin had also mentioned the idea that since we were moving from
Apache::OK to Apache2::OK (again with a virtual namespace) it might make
more sense to use Apache::Const::OK instead. I guess that's lots of typing,
but uses always have OK if they want.
thoughts?
--Geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
