> Well, didn't think that it would require a new branch. > Ok, can we at least agree to the following. > > 1. Apache2 uses APR > 2. IIS uses APR > 3. Apache1 can use the APR.
Did iPlanet/NES could use APR on Netware, I'm waiting for Mike Anderson advices. Also we should be very carefull with APR since APR standalone is 0.9.1 and the one bundled with Apache 2.0.42 report to be 0.9.2. I allready worked on providing apr and apr-utils as standalone shared libs, which could be used with Apache 1.3 under Linux for example, but we should know which configure flags should be use, ie --enable-threads or --without-threads since Apache 1.3 is non threaded on at least Linux platforms. > Or to be specific: > There is only one build configuration right now that doesn't necessary > need the APR, but is crippled to use only the socket connector. > > My question is that make sense? > > You may name the version whatever you like 2.1.0 or 2.0.1, doesn't > matter at all to me, but simply drop the option to build without APR. We speaked about use of APR in JK2 many times in the past, take a look at tomcat-dev mailing list archive. Making APR mandatory for JK2 was never planned for 2.0 but for 2.1, which will be a whole different story. > Would It be such a big step forward to open a new branch, I don't think > so. It's really a nightmare to manage 2 differents branches at the same time and port/backport fixes in two branches. That was the case for JK when living in Tomcat 3.2.x and 3.3.x repositories, it's also the case for Tomcat 4.0.x and 4.1.x. One of the goal when I started jakarta-tomcat-connectors was to remove the duplicate works in jk TC 3.2/3.3 and I really against seeing the same on JK2 in JTC. I wonder what's the problem using #idef HAVE_APR in JK2 today ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
