Mailing List Archive

It's unlikely to be backwards compatible. There will likely be a mapping
between the interfaces, and in theory someone might be able to write a
compatibility layer. But 2.0 is viewed as a chance to rewrite the API to
deal with the problems we've found in the current version.

1.3 is pretty much the same as 1.2 though, with a few additions.

Dean

On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Brian Slesinsky wrote:

>
> Is the API interface between an Apache module and the core going to be
> backwards compatible in 2.0? That's the part I'm most interested in.
>
> (I thought I read somewhere that it was, but I can't find it now.)
>
> __Brian__
>
>

So, are you guys planning to rewrite the API docs for 2.0?

:]

Laurel

On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> It's unlikely to be backwards compatible. There will likely be a mapping
> between the interfaces, and in theory someone might be able to write a
> compatibility layer. But 2.0 is viewed as a chance to rewrite the API to
> deal with the problems we've found in the current version.
>
> 1.3 is pretty much the same as 1.2 though, with a few additions.
>
> Dean
>
> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Brian Slesinsky wrote:
>
> >
> > Is the API interface between an Apache module and the core going to be
> > backwards compatible in 2.0? That's the part I'm most interested in.
> >
> > (I thought I read somewhere that it was, but I can't find it now.)
> >
> > __Brian__
> >
> >
>
>



.....................................................................
Laurel J. Gaddie laurel@c2.net
Documentation Coordinator http://www.c2.net
C2Net Software, Inc. 510.986.8776

What API docs ? :/

Dean

On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Laurel Gaddie wrote:

>
> So, are you guys planning to rewrite the API docs for 2.0?
>
> :]
>
> Laurel
>
> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
> > It's unlikely to be backwards compatible. There will likely be a mapping
> > between the interfaces, and in theory someone might be able to write a
> > compatibility layer. But 2.0 is viewed as a chance to rewrite the API to
> > deal with the problems we've found in the current version.
> >
> > 1.3 is pretty much the same as 1.2 though, with a few additions.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Brian Slesinsky wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Is the API interface between an Apache module and the core going to be
> > > backwards compatible in 2.0? That's the part I'm most interested in.
> > >
> > > (I thought I read somewhere that it was, but I can't find it now.)
> > >
> > > __Brian__
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> .....................................................................
> Laurel J. Gaddie laurel@c2.net
> Documentation Coordinator http://www.c2.net
> C2Net Software, Inc. 510.986.8776
>
>

Since 2.0 won't be backward compatible there will need to be some
incentive to upgrade. Perhaps one way to do that is to write good API
docs for 2.0 and leave 1.x (mostly) undocumented? :-)

On the other hand, if there's a compatibility layer, the 1.x API docs
could describe only the calls that are supported by it, so people who
write to the documented interface are covered. I think module writers
would use that API when possible so their modules can work with both 1.x
and 2.0.

In any case it sounds like the API docs will have to be closely
coordinated with the 2.0 effort.

_____________________________________________________________________
Brian Slesinsky www.wired.com/staff/bslesins