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
