On 10/21/07, Nick Mathewson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:22:27AM -0700, Niels Provos wrote: > > After talking with Nick, I think the solution that makes the most > > sense is to build three different libraries: > > > > - libevent-core which contains only the event loop > > - libevent-extras which contains DNS, HTTP, etc. > > - libevent which contains everything for backwards compatibility > > > > That should make everyone happy. > > Okay! I'll do this in trunk in the next couple of days, assuming that > nobody objects. Thank you guys for the attention to the issue. Small questions: 1. would the evbuffer & bufferevents still be part of the libevent-core, or something else? I am working on a C++ interface for this part.
2. Could we give "extras" a slightly sexier name such as WWW or web-server? I do find this to be a valuable part as well, and I am planning to work on a C++ interface for the HTTP server part in the future. > Another issue: We're apparently using the --revision and --version > arguments to libtool wrong. Our use of --revision means that binaries > built against one version of libevent need to be rebuilt to use the > next. Our current non-use f --version-info means that once we fix the > --revision problem, we'll give linkers the wrong idea about which > versions of libevent are which. It seems to me, that this was the equivalent of starting with 0:0:0. If I read the page right, we could use something like "1:0:1", which indicates that we have a "new" interface, but we remain backward compatible with the first version. _______________________________________________ Libevent-users mailing list Libevent-users@monkey.org http://monkey.org/mailman/listinfo/libevent-users
