On Sun, 19 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Is it ok if I drop ModPerl::RegistryNG? Currently it just an alias to
> ModPerl::Registry. there is no need for it, because the whole family is
> NG now. Also it's not called Apache::RegistryNG in any case.
sounds right to me. the original idea behind
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I beg your pardon? I cannot find any reference of you saying anything
> regarding $r->content.
i'm certain i've at least stated several times that $r->content and
$r->args in-an-array-context were mistakes that never should have been
part of the api.
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
> > after syncing up from CVS just now I get this during the compile:
>
> what version of apache? should be at least 2.0.36
> i'll be updating Makefile.PL to make sure it is at least that before _02.
Yep, th
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>err_header_out() is not available in 2.x. We sugest to use
>>err_headers_out() instead. but we don't have it in the compat layer.
>>
>>Should we implement it in Apache::compat similar to header_out()?
>
>
> yes.
done
>>$
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>>For some reason, Apache->request->dir_config returns an empty table (no
>>keys or values) even though Apache->server->dir_config has the revelant
>>config info.
>
>
> i can see why this is happening, the per-server and per-dir tables are not
> merged. one thing that'l
Is it ok if I drop ModPerl::RegistryNG? Currently it just an alias to
ModPerl::Registry. there is no need for it, because the whole family is
NG now. Also it's not called Apache::RegistryNG in any case.
__
Stas BekmanJ
