"Zeinert, Holger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On this note - I would actually like to ask the windows users out > > there if 2.0 would indeed by an option that would solve your > > problems, or if it's really necessary to find something that works > > for 1.3. I will do my best to act accordingly, within the limits > > of feasibility.
> Well, what should I say... I started to build a new system and after > some looking around I decided, that mod_dtcl looks best of the > available and running options (I did not get rivet to work). This > implies to use apache 1.3. > I have no objection against using apache 2.0, but my major problems > are developing my system. Every change in the environment (apache > 1.3 to 2.0, mod_dtcl to rivet, oratcl 2.7 to 4.0) which causes > re-implementation due to syntax/semantic changes are additional > things to handle. > Of course, if there are benefits (e.g. multi-threating, more stable, > faster, easier to implement), the effort to change is worth it. I understand your position - unfortunately, I don't know, or have the time to do, everything! I will do my best to come up with something that I can apply to mod_dtcl to make it as stable as possible under windows, but it may come down to a question of either/or, and I wanted to know what people would prefer. Of course, the more people step forward and work on things, the more can be accomplished. Thank you in any case for creating that test case - maybe Craig will be able to reproduce the problem and, hopefully, fix it. Thanks, -- David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
