You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> on 2003/11/09 23:28:12 UTC
[PATCH] ap_get_server_revision
There's currently no API for modules to determine the unmodified server
version. I'd like to introduce one (and backport to 2.0) -- see
attached patch. Any objections, comments?
nd
Re: [PATCH] ap_get_server_revision
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:59 PM +0100 André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> Yeah, in concept I'd agree. (This function is was new for me :-)
> But what about the cases where some vendor patches the patchlevel to name a
> version like "2.0.48-1"? I'd try to be flexible enough to allow such cases.
> So we should consider to leave out the is_dev part and introduce a add_string
> part or the like. How does this sound?
+1. -- justin
Re: [PATCH] ap_get_server_revision
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 11:28:12PM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> > There's currently no API for modules to determine the unmodified server
> > version. I'd like to introduce one (and backport to 2.0) -- see
> > attached patch. Any objections, comments?
>
> No objections here. Yet, perhaps we should add an apr_version() like
> call for httpd? That'd be more powerful, I think. -- justin
Yeah, in concept I'd agree. (This function is was new for me :-)
But what about the cases where some vendor patches the patchlevel to name a
version like "2.0.48-1"? I'd try to be flexible enough to allow such cases. So
we should consider to leave out the is_dev part and introduce a add_string
part or the like. How does this sound?
nd
Re: [PATCH] ap_get_server_revision
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 11:28:12PM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> There's currently no API for modules to determine the unmodified server
> version. I'd like to introduce one (and backport to 2.0) -- see
> attached patch. Any objections, comments?
No objections here. Yet, perhaps we should add an apr_version() like
call for httpd? That'd be more powerful, I think. -- justin