question on Apache2_4::AuthCookie
"A. Warnier" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.mod-perl |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi. I have (a long time ago) created an AAA module based originally on Apache2::AuthCookie (a copy and rewrite, not a sub-class). Now I need to adapt this to Apache 2.4. I have read all the docs at https://metacpan.org/source/MSCHOUT/Apache-AuthCookie-3.24/lib/Apache2_4/AuthCookie.pm, and followed the related correspondence on this list. My problem is that I would like to keep a single perl source, for both Apache 2.2 and Apache 2.4. As far as I can tell so far, this should not be a big problem, except for the following difference : In the Apache 2.2 version, I have this statement : use Apache2::Const -compile => qw(:common :http :methods :override :proxy); and in the Apache 2.4 version, I must have this statement or it will not compile : use Apache2::Const -compile => qw(:common :http :methods :override :proxy AUTHZ_GRANTED AUTHZ_DENIED AUTHZ_DENIED_NO_USER); (That is because these new AUTHZ_* constants must be used in the new "AuthzProvider" subs). I could of course hack the values of these constants under 2.4, and use their values directly in my module, but that is rather "inelegant". My question is thus : would there be a way to make the import of these constants conditional on the Apache version the module is running under ? (In other words e.g. define them with value 0 initially (for Apache 2.2, since they are never used there), and override them if under Apache 2.4 ? Or, to put this another way : imagining that there are already some servers, currently running Apache 2.2 with, say, mod_perl 2.0.7, and on which the current (2.2-only) version of my Auth module is running. If I ever update these servers with the latest (2.4-compatible) version of my module, including the above extra imported constants, that updated module will not compile anymore on those systems (because these constants are not defined there). Is there a way to avoid this incompatibility ? I tried to phrase the above as clearly as possible, but if it is still confusing, I can try again.. Thanks