At 12:23 PM 2/27/2002, Jobarr wrote:
> > > In that case we should simply make the error more descriptive:
> > >
> > > "Failed to load module. Perhaps this module was compiled for Apache
>1.3?"
> >
> > Ugh. Then, +1 for Aaron's comment.
>
>A "Failed to load" message of any kind is MUCH better than
> > In that case we should simply make the error more descriptive:
> >
> > "Failed to load module. Perhaps this module was compiled for Apache
1.3?"
>
> Ugh. Then, +1 for Aaron's comment.
A "Failed to load" message of any kind is MUCH better than "module not
found", as that leads to thinking th
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:32:34AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:20:51PM -0500, Greg Marr wrote:
> > Not on Windows. You will not be able to even load the module. The
> > LoadLibrary call will fail, since the module is linked against
> > functions that don't exist.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:20:51PM -0500, Greg Marr wrote:
> Not on Windows. You will not be able to even load the module. The
> LoadLibrary call will fail, since the module is linked against
> functions that don't exist. That is a standard system error message
> from using LoadLibrary to lo
At 12:03 PM 02/27/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:44:03PM +, Thom May wrote:
> > However, that brings up a point:
> >
> > Can we detect when a 1.3 module will be used with 2.0? One of my
> > housemates was trying to install the PHP 1.3 module with 2.0.32 on
> > Win32 la
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:44:03PM +, Thom May wrote:
> > * Justin Erenkrantz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > > --
> > > >Number: 9952
> > > >Category: mod_jserv
> > > >Synopsis: Cannot load tomcat connection module
> > > >Arrival-Date: Mon Feb 25 07:10:01 PST 2002
> >
