> Two reasons: > > 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is > easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source > subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick up "test/".
This hasn't been an object in APR. I would prefer to enumerate the subdirs to build, because it allows us to specify only those subdirs that we want to build. We don't have this support in apr-utils yet, but it will be needed if this is project is going to be very useful outside of Apache. Not everybody will want to use all of apr-util, and not everybody will want to require shared libraries. > 2) to keep the top-level cleaner. we have eight groups of functionality in > apr-util/src/. tossing those up a level would make that a bit more > confusing. Currently, the top-level has: build/, docs/, include/, src/, > and test/. Each is obvious in purpose. Isn't this clean enough just because each of the directories has a very specific purpose? Does it buy us anything to have this repository look like APR and Apache? Does SubVersion have a src directory? We just removed the src directory from Apache itself, why? do those arguments apply to apr-util as well? I have no answers, but those are the questions that I am left wondering about, so I wanted to make sure that they were brought out into the open so that we had answers when others asked them. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
