> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:01 AM
>
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:38 AM
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 07:26:05AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > the only way
At 03:01 AM 12/07/2000, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:19:07PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'm actually contemplating building both the .lib and .dll as two
full compiles.
> The benefit, when called for, is that users of the .lib won't
have dangling
> exported symbols. I r
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:01:14AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:38 AM
>...
> > In MSVC5, is it possible to change what occurs after the "-"? In other
> > words, could we have "Apache - Win32 Debug DLL" mean
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:38 AM
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 07:26:05AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > the only way the MSVC 5.0 .dsp files may depend on one another are
> > on the same "- Win32 Debug" tag ... only when you get
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 07:26:05AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:01 AM
> >
> > > I'm actually contemplating building both the .lib and .dll as two full
> > > compiles.
> > > The benefit, when called for, i
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:01 AM
>
> > I'm actually contemplating building both the .lib and .dll as two full
> > compiles.
> > The benefit, when called for, is that users of the .lib won't have dangling
> > exported symbols. I refused so f
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:19:07PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:01 PM
> >
> > > Just a footnote... what is in misc/ could just as easily live in a
> > > helpers or
> > > build directory, it's noth
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:01 PM
>
> > Just a footnote... what is in misc/ could just as easily live in a helpers
> > or
> > build directory, it's nothing but an empty stub to eliminate compiler emits.
>
> Okay, now I'm confused. T
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 6:05 PM
> > Unfortunately, no. OtherBill just added a "misc" directory. If that were at
> > the top level, nothing about it would indicate that it contains source code
> > for the library. I worry similarly abo
> How much complexity are we willing to trade off for the minority position?
I consider this an important issue, so I am willing to trade a bit of
complexity for this feature. I don't want to add a lot of complexity, but
a bit.
Plus, as apr-util grows, Apache will not want some of the functions
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 04:05:12PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1) Even if you build the whole thing, only the pieces used will be pulled
> >into the application linking against APRUTIL. It is exactly this behavior
> >that we're trying to avoid with the whole "exports.c" hack (we're
> 1) Even if you build the whole thing, only the pieces used will be pulled
>into the application linking against APRUTIL. It is exactly this behavior
>that we're trying to avoid with the whole "exports.c" hack (we're trying
>to force a reference to everything in APR to ensure that it
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:30:33PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Two reasons:
> >
> > 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is
> >easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source
> >subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick
> > 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is
> >easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source
> >subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick up "test/".
> >
> > 2) to keep the top-level cleaner. we have eight groups of functionalit
> Two reasons:
>
> 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is
>easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source
>subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick up "test/".
This hasn't been an object in APR. I would prefer to enumerate th
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:51:59PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:32 PM
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:38:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >...
> > > Why do we add the additional complexity o
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:32 PM
>
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:38:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >...
> > Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within apr-util?
> > Can't we keep to the same simplicity as ap
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:38:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>...
> Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within apr-util?
> Can't we keep to the same simplicity as apr itself? Suggesting, therefore,
> that we aught to have apr-util/buckets rather than apr-util/src/b
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 02:28:31PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> > All I'm asking for is the symbol name, is APR_UTIL_DECLARE too wordy (and if
> > so, would we rather use APU_DECLARE or APRU_DECLARE?, or even AU_DECLARE)
>
> I guess if we need another one, I would suggest APU_DECLARE.
I
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:04:09PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > UGH! That's a real PITA. I was really hoping to not have to create
> > > another set of DECLARE macros. :-(
> >
> > Not you... me.
>
> I meant I was hoping Apache wouldn't NEED another set of macros. I was
> hoping th
> > UGH! That's a real PITA. I was really hoping to not have to create
> > another set of DECLARE macros. :-(
>
> Not you... me.
I meant I was hoping Apache wouldn't NEED another set of macros. I was
hoping the two we have now would be enough.
Ryan
__
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:29 PM
>
> > Symbols can't be wrapped by APR_DECLARE, we need to use an APU_DECLARE, or
> > APR_UTIL_DECLARE, or whatever. Consider;
> >
> > apr-util.dll needs to export its symbols, and import the APR_DECLAR
> Bigger issue. [just finished reviewing it myself]
>
> Symbols can't be wrapped by APR_DECLARE, we need to use an APU_DECLARE, or
> APR_UTIL_DECLARE, or whatever. Consider;
>
> APR_DECLARE symbols are exported into the aprlib.dll
>
> apr-util.dll needs to export its symbols, and import the A
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:19 PM
>
> > We also have some other tweaky things such as the HOOK macros. You may have
> > noticed that Ryan had to undo the APR rename. I haven't looked into it, but
> > I bet it was because we don't have al
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:29 PM
>
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:24AM -0800, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >...
> > 1) I assume that the ap_* prefix on files/etc hasn't been changed to apr_*
> > yet
> > simply to ease the transition to httpd-2.0,
> We also have some other tweaky things such as the HOOK macros. You may have
> noticed that Ryan had to undo the APR rename. I haven't looked into it, but
> I bet it was because we don't have all the right APR_DECLARE macro magic
> available. Could have also been that he didn't want to change all
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:24AM -0800, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>...
> 1) I assume that the ap_* prefix on files/etc hasn't been changed to apr_* yet
> simply to ease the transition to httpd-2.0, and that the namespace change
> will come
> in a later pass. Right?
Yup. I'm not sure what the strate
> 1) I assume that the ap_* prefix on files/etc hasn't been changed to apr_* yet
> simply to ease the transition to httpd-2.0, and that the namespace change
> will come
> in a later pass. Right?
The prefix was left alone, because I wasn't going to bother changing it
until we have a working serv
28 matches
Mail list logo
