apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: Fw: SHA1 and Base64
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:38:53 GMT
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:03:49PM -0800, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: <rbb@covalent.net>
> To: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>
> Cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>
> > 
> > > We can stratify and create as many layers in Apache as we want to put up
> > > with. But when we're talking about a *portability* library, then it should
> > > focus on just that.
> > 
> > All of the code we are talking about is portable code, it may not have
> > portability issues itself, but programs that use this code do have
> > portability issues, and have an MD5 hash or SHA1 and Base64 encoding do
> > allow those programs to be more portable.
> As a poor, downtrodden Win32 guy... I entirely agree.  There is lots of
> stuff implemented as unix/v or freebsd libraries that just aren't portable
> without cygwin.  We aren't trying to be cygwin, but trying to offer some
> cross platform fn's with native optmizations.  There is nothing wrong with
> translations, hashing, tables or encodings implemented in APR, there just
> has to be someone who might need the features.

There is a large distinction between "we help you write your program" and
"we help you to make a portable program."

> I'm questioning if/how much of/ iconv we should be distributing.  But any

At 8M of *source*, I don't believe it should be built into APR, but should
be a separately downloadable package.

> which way, we should be providing these simple data types to make c coding 
> easier and more portable across platforms.  We rejected a mission statment 
> that said apr was nothing but portability...

The mission talkes about a "system portability layer". So I don't know what
you mean by "rejected".

> the fns we are discussing are
> all very reasonable tools to include in APR (including base64/sha1).  Put
> them into a 'lib' or 'util' section, or whatever, but arguing is pointless.

Nobody is arguing. Discussion, yes, but argue has a connotation which I
don't think fits. But regardless, it *does* have a point. Do you want
somebody to turn APR into something that you think is totally in the wrong
direction? That doesn't move towards it "true goal" [as you see it?]. I
wouldn't think so, and I don't think anybody else does either. We are
discussing what to do because we want to see the Right Thing done, however
we happen to define/see as the Right Thing.

But... this may be moot if we move forward on the APRUTIL idea. The only
question at that point will be "what goes in there"?


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message