From: "Chuck Murcko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PATCH] Re: httpd 1.3.19 + proxy
> I've updated the proxy HTTP/1.1 patch at > > http://dev.apache.org/dist/patches/apply_to_1.3.19/ Note this small delta for Win32 Index: src/os/win32/ApacheCore.def =================================================================== RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/ApacheCore.def,v retrieving revision 1.28 diff -u -r1.28 ApacheCore.def --- src/os/win32/ApacheCore.def 2000/12/27 21:45:11 1.28 +++ src/os/win32/ApacheCore.def 2001/03/27 04:54:27 @@ -389,3 +389,6 @@ ap_stripprefix @380 ap_os_dso_load @381 ap_os_dso_error @382 + + ; Introduced in 1.3.20 + ap_replace_tables @383 And in order to build... Index: src/include/ap_alloc.h =================================================================== RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/include/ap_alloc.h,v retrieving revision 1.75 diff -u -r1.75 ap_alloc.h --- src/include/ap_alloc.h 2001/02/03 20:14:49 1.75 +++ src/include/ap_alloc.h 2001/03/27 05:11:35 @@ -234,6 +234,7 @@ API_EXPORT(void) ap_table_addn(table *, const char *name, const char *val); API_EXPORT(void) ap_table_do(int (*comp) (void *, const char *, const char *), void *rec, const table *t,...); +API_EXPORT(int) ap_replace_tables(table *base, table *overlay); API_EXPORT(table *) ap_overlay_tables(pool *p, const table *overlay, const table *base); But it brings up two issues, one, why didn't this stay with the ap_table_foo convention, instead of adding more ap_foo_table noise? And second (more importantly) doen't any of the merge/mergen/overlay fn's do what we want already? I hate expanding if we already accounted for this mechanism due to a lack of understanding (mine included) of what our API has to offer. Bill
