GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We may have to change our code when Apache2.1 is released -
>> but coding against one API in jk2 ( i.e. APR-head ) and using
>> it with Apache2 ( with another APR API ) is looking for trouble.
>
> +1, and that's one of my major concern with mod_webapp.
>
>> >As a secondary note, if anyone has some time we should
>> >look at sourceforge's ant-contrib and their CC task and
>> >eventually merge jkant into it, we shouldn't duplicate
>> >the effort.
>>
>> Hum, why didn't they include ant-contrib in ant cvs ?
>
>I think it's sometimes easier to work o
Back to earth
>> If that's provided with Apache 2.0... What if it's not
>provided with the
>> web-server (AKA, apache 1.3?)
>
>We either don't use APR, or use the APR that is included with
>Apache2.0.
Since the only available APR release are those from Apache 2.0
release, my shared apr l
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> If we use apr, I think ( a bit strongly ) that
>>> we should use exactly the same library as apache2 does.
>>
>> If that's provided with Apache 2
On Tue, 7 May 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >I must say I don't like autoconf too much :-)
>
> Ditto, ant is better than m4 but we couldn't ask
> people to have a jvm+ant+... to build native code ;(
I agree - but doing autoconf twice ( once in APR, once
for jk ) is _bad_. Not only because it's dou
On Tue, 7 May 2002, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> > APR libs should/could be installed in /usr/lib, /usr/include,
> > and considered 'system' ( like glib, qt, nspr, etc ).
> > If you build a non-threaded version, it shouldn't be
> > called libapr.so in any case.
>
> But we have to deliver the a
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we use apr, I think ( a bit strongly ) that
> > we should use exactly the same library as apache2 does.
>
> If that's provided with Apache 2.0... What if it's not provided with the
> web-server (
>But we have to deliver the apr.so corresponding to mod_jk.so.
Exact and and it's not a big problem, if you use packaging
tools like rpm/deb.
mod_jk will depend on libapr rpm or /usr/lib/libapr.so
I could produce and place both of them in download dir
>Pier is right... That is more easy to lin
>I must say I don't like autoconf too much :-)
Ditto, ant is better than m4 but we couldn't ask
people to have a jvm+ant+... to build native code ;(
>But I know many people find it easier, so I won't opose
>this.
Thanks and JF is a great specialist of autoconf
>At the moment the compilation of
>> 1) What about moving scripts from jk/native to
>>just jk ? It avoid duplicate between native
>>and native2.
>
>That may bring problems: the configure.in normaly contains the
>files you want to
>generate.
Ok, I keep 2 set of files.
>> 2) What should be done for APR in Apache 1.3 ?
>Every "autoconf" M4 definition file (configure.in) is (should)
>be tied to
>the bone of what it's trying to actually configure... If there's enough
>stuff in common (like all you want is something like
>--enable-native=[native/native2]) that could work, but
>otherwise, it's just
>going to mess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
>
>>>1) What about moving scripts from jk/native to
>>> just jk ? It avoid duplicate between native
>>> and native2.
>>
>>That may bring problems: the configure.in normaly contains the files you want to
>>generate.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we use apr, I think ( a bit strongly ) that
> we should use exactly the same library as apache2 does.
If that's provided with Apache 2.0... What if it's not provided with the
web-server (AKA, apache 1.3?)
> APR libs should/could be installed i
On Tue, 7 May 2002, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> > 1) What about moving scripts from jk/native to
> >just jk ? It avoid duplicate between native
> >and native2.
>
> That may bring problems: the configure.in normaly contains the files you want to
> generate.
IMHO autoconf is justified o
Henri,
I must say I don't like autoconf too much :-)
There are few reasons for that, one beeing that I
prefer to have control over what's compiled ( we want
to distribute the binary to work on any machine, I want
minimal deps on the build machine ).
But I know many people find it easier, so I w
"jean-frederic clere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>> I started to works on adding autoconf stuff for
>> mod_jk2 (native2) for Apache 1.3/2.0 and will need
>> some help and advice since it's not fluent in this
>> area (JF/Pier are jtc specialists).
>>
>> Initial works in on Mak
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> I started to works on adding autoconf stuff for
> mod_jk2 (native2) for Apache 1.3/2.0 and will need
> some help and advice since it's not fluent in this
> area (JF/Pier are jtc specialists).
>
> Initial works in on Makefile for apxs.
>
> 1) What about moving scripts from jk
17 matches
Mail list logo
