Why do you want to jettison "edge platforms"? The original goal was to keep HTTPd as portable as 1.3 was, which meant APR had to support mainframes, OS/2, etc. All of those edge platforms are what made APR challenging to create and maintain, but they also provide a lot of value for the people who want their code to work on mainframes, but don't want to write their own portability library.
Removing this support takes away a web server (at the very least) from openBeOS, OS400, OS/2, etc. While these platforms may not be mainstream these days, dropping support for them from HTTPd (the natural result of dropping support from APR) seems like a decision that can only be made after discussion with APR's users, not the developers of APR itself. Just a few thoughts from the gallery. Ryan Ryan Bloom [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: > > When thinking about 2.0, I'm having a hard time with the idea of >> pulling apr-util into regular apr. We've got a lot of stuff in >> apr-util that has nothing to do with "Portability". Basically, I see >> apr-util doing one of two types of things: >> >> * common API to access functionality (dbd, ldap, crypto) >> * useful functionality built on APR >> >> I think it would be great if we could concentrate on just a core APR >> that offers OS portability, and that we also jettison "edge" platforms >> (keep posix and windows only). And that we trim out functionality >> (i.e. apr_tables) that have nothing to do with portability (tho we >> keep pools as a lifetime mgmt capability for OS objects). >> >> Thoughts? >> > > I think both apr and apr-util are still both based on the idea of > "portability". > > In apr, the focus is on making individual or "small" sets of functions > available in a portable way, while the focus of apr-util is to have "large" > or "complex" sets of functionality (access a database, access an LDAP > server, encrypt a string) available in a portable way. > > That said you're right that some parts of it, like tables, fall into the > category of "useful stuff" rather than "portable stuff". Perhaps an idea > could be to move the "useful stuff" into (a want for a better name) > apr-useful, which would be the "useful stuff" library built on top of the > portability provided by apr. > > Regards, > Graham > -- >
