On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:22:01PM +0100, david reid wrote: > While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the > functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually > available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the > library code that I feel really belong in apr-util. > > I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at > what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the > project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so > having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may > be a win for them as well. > > I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we > should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The > overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be > also minimal.
Well, it's only when you propose something specific that it can really be considered! The 3-point rule for "what stuff should go in apr-util" that everyone seemed happy with was that it should be small, good, and useful. Adding *all* of apreq's library/*.c would certainly fail the size test, I'd say. joe
