apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@xbc.nu>
Subject Re: SHA1 and Base64
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:05:52 GMT
rbb@covalent.net wrote:

> Greg and I are pretty clear on our definition of what does and does not
> belong in APR, does anybody else have an opinion?  We need to get this
> decided.

This is a tough question. On the one hand, Greg's right that your 
arguments can effectively be used in favour of putting any and all 
"useful" utility functions into ARP. On the other hand, one might just 
as easily use Greg's arguments to throw pools out of APR and put them in 
a separate utility library ...

To me, all of this speaks in favour of creating /another/ library for 
such not-sctrictly-portability stuff, and slowly moving the generic bits 
out of APR. For all I care this could mean splitting APR into a core and 
utility library, but keeping them conceptually together.

How much sense that makes is another matter.

-- 
Brane ─îibej
    home:   <brane@xbc.nu>             http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
    work:   <branko.cibej@hermes.si>   http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
     ACM:   <brane@acm.org>            http://www.acm.org/



Mime
View raw message