GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> >No, that is not exactly the goal of APR, it is USED by APACHE2.0 but
> >should/could be standalone. But it means probabably 2
> >portables run time for the
> >non-Apache servers.
> >
> >I prefer to use apr_socket_create() than to see several #ifdef
> >#else #endif in mod_webapp, the portability problems should not be solved
> in
> >mod_webapp but in another layer.
>
> I agree and that's the main advantage of APR. But you'll see on
> a Tomcat list question like 'How to build APR ?', 'Where to find a APR.DLL
> ?'.
This could be the answer:
+++ CUT +++
>
> * remove the --disable-shared from the subdir config of APR(UTIL)
> before the final release. (in fact, it might even be nice to
> allow for Apache config/build against an already-installed
> APR(UTIL))
> Note: we need to do a "make install" for APR(UTIL) so the shared
> libraries can be installed properly. We could also use that
> point to install include files (rather than have Apache
> know everything that needs to be installed from the
> sub-packages). The original impetus for doing the
> disable-shared was because the shared lib wasn't getting
> installed and a "make clean" in aprutil would make Apache
> fail to load.
+++ CUT +++
>From [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 21 23:45:16 EST 2001
That means apr.so could/should be downloaded independantly from Apache. (And
will be in Apache2.0).
>
> Borred questions for most Tomcat users .
>
> What I wanted to say is that mod_webapp didn't have wrapper code
> for use with IIS or NES or JNI. Only a module for Apache 1.3/2.0
>
> >> Chambery is under rain, but no snow yet in town ;-)
> >
> >Barcelona is not yet sunny but it will be sunny and hot today,
> >I am born in La Tronche (35 kms from Chambery)!
>
> !!! Un voisin !!!
>
> I'm pleased to see that many tomcat users / developers came from
> Alps Mountain :)
