Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
No we didn't agree to do that Enrico, for the reasons I described above.
Just to reinforce... no, we didn't agree to that.
I think that the notion leveraging APR for implementing the
portability layer for the VM was what we didn't disagree on. ( I
won't claim agreement...)
But that's way different than APR for the class lib portlib.
So you have to create a apr.IA32 class lib, don't you?
I think I don't understand the question.
Yes, we can do an implementation using APR, but what I thought was
driving this discussion was the idea that we could abandon portlib and
tie everything directly to the APR API.
Using APR to implement the porting layer for the VM/classlib is just
peachy - it saves us oodles of work.
geir
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
geir
Regards,
Tim
