From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:45 PM
> > I'm still in favor of apr-client. If we want to rename the top-level CVS > > directory at some point, then fine... > > Okay, assuming the APR PMC wants to take it on as a responsibility. +1 here, since this proves the APR Project must eat it's own dogfood :-))) Think _lightweight_ guys ... if this gets unmanageable, it might need to become it's own project. And I agree with the assertion that APR = Portability Runtime, APR-UTIL = Portable Runtime Utilities. We can extend that just as long as we remember that APR (primary) never contains anything except portability, and APR-UTIL shouldn't grow in -huge- chunks (if it exceeds 10k lines of code, it probably warrents it's own codebase.) Sure sounds like apr-client could fit the bill. Bill
