This is great . Let me know when you need it tested.. Im just ramping up my own knowledge of mp2
And authcookie is one of the modules I love to use! > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 16, 2005 1:19 AM > To: Michael J Schout; mod_perl > Subject: Re: Apache2:: namespace and AuthCookie package name. > > > > Michael J Schout wrote: > > Hey everyone. > > > > I am working on updating Apache::AuthCookie to work with mod_perl > > 2.0.0-RC5. In past releases, both the MP1 and MP2 versions of > > AuthCookie were installed as Apache::AuthCookie, even > though the MP2 > > version of the module has several API changes in order to > be compatible > > with MP2. Makefile.PL tries to determine which version of > mod_perl the > > current machine has installed, and selects the appropriate > version of > > AuthCookie to install (MP1 or MP2). This has been less than ideal. > > > > Now that we have settled on the Apache2:: namespace for > mod_perl2, it > > seems appropriate to me to leave Apache::AuthCookie as the > MP1 supported > > version of AuthCookie, and to rename the MP2 version to > > Apache2::AuthCookie. This will eliminate confusion over which MP > > supported version of AuthCookie is installed, and seems to > fit in with > > the Apache2:: namespace that mod_perl2 uses. > > Yes, I'd recommend this if it isn't going to involve massive > overhead. > In fact, since you don't support both versions in your one > package and > install different versions anyways, I'd say a definite yes. > > > My question is, do I need to do anything special to > register/reserve the > > Apache2::AuthCookie namespace? Are there any objections to > this? I do > > not see any other 3rd party modules under the Apache2:: > namespace on > > CPAN, so I am not sure if this is acceptable or not :). > > It's acceptable. You'd just be one of the very first outside > of the core > modules. I have an Apache2:: module on the way as well. > > Nothing special is needed, first to upload to a namespace > wins (as usual). > > One point that might interest other module authors. If you do > move over > to the new namespace, consider this your big chance to refactor your > module's API and structure to something more elegant (if you > arn't happy > with the current one). > > This is of course subject to all the normal issues regarding > API change > and how much your userbase will like/dislike it when porting > their own > code. But it shouldn't hurt anyone if you do now. > > Adam K
