On 1/3/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here on the list and at every hackathon/ApacheCon for the last few years.
Searching body text of the history for 'merge apr' or 'combine apr' yields
no results, pointer please. Undocumented hackathon discussions are not
valid citations.
I didn't say they were decisions (which need to be made on-list), but
discussions. *shrug*
>> Now - I thought the public discussion lists were moving twords disolving
>> APR-util into smaller libraries, dependent on specific features that
>> wouldn't swallow the entire world of unnecessary library functionality
>> into every runtime?
>
> That's part of the discussions that have been here on list, but
> frankly, I've never seen anyone say how a dynamic APR would work
> reliably. In fact, I think the eventual consensus was that
> splitting-off approach could never work at all.
Where is that documented?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/200608.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's how I interpreted the outcome of that thread.
Please don't start a thread on "Our agreed way to ..." when in fact there's
no documented technical discussion, and start a fresh thread to attempt to
argue that svn or log4cxx really needs to load libldap/liblber.
They load them today, so your argument that we must prevent that in
2.0 is bollocks. Frankly, the idea that APR is used without APR-util
is not supported by any actual evidence. IMHO, it'd make everyone's
life far simpler if we faced reality and combine them into one
library. -- justin
