Re: Was there any concrete decision on apreq?

In a nutshell the long term goal has always been to get the c parts of apreq=
 incorporated into httpd distributions so the perl parts can ship with modpe=
rl.  This is still along those lines.  In order to continue to expose the co=
ol cgi code that Issac added to libapreq we need to ensure there is an actua=
l external library still when we ship with httpd otherwise we lose the modul=
ar features we spent so much time designing as apreq would then be limited t=
o httpd modules only.  I'd like to see it serve the entire gamut of web apps=
 including fast cgi.  That's what my ongoing plans are for the httpd project=
.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Steve Hay <[email protected]> wrote:=

>=20
> I'm not sure exactly what the proposal here is, but as long as the
> perl glue (Apache2::Request et al) still exists on CPAN and can be
> built in the usual manner then that sounds fine.
>=20
> At the moment it contains a number of XS modules (APR::Request::*)
> which variously link against libapreq2.lib (.dll) and mod_apreq2.lib
> (.so), which are also built as part of the same build process. If
> those XS modules will in the future link against httpd (libhttpd.lib?)
> instead then I can't think of any problem with that.
>=20
>=20
>> On 24 February 2015 at 11:02, Issac Goldstand <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>> I think nothing.
>>=20
>> Most mod_perl users (I think) install apreq via Apache2::Request.  That
>> can continue to be maintained on CPAN, as is, linking against httpd
>> instead of mod_apreq
>>=20
>> Or do you forsee a problem here?
>>=20
>>> On 2/24/2015 9:56 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
>>> What would this mean for mod_perl users? I, and I assume many
>>> others(?), still use the perl glue part of libapreq in mod_perl
>>> software.
>>>=20
>>> I only just spotted this thread, and just wondered how such mod_perl
>>> users will be affected, if at all.
>>>=20
>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 03:24, Joseph Schaefer <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>>>> I still want to do that just lacking tuits
>>>>=20
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Gregg Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Am I missing something? Did I miss a boatload of email where any firm=

>>>>>> decision was made?
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I don't think you have missed anything. I assume very few people have
>>>>> any clue how it's integrated/used today.  The last thing I have in my
>>>>> mail archive is joes proposal to pull the library part back out and
>>>>> make it available in a way similar to mod_ldap.
>>=20