apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: SHA1 and Base64
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:15:11 GMT

> > I just don't understand this argument, I'm sorry.  The whole point of APR
> > is to help people port their code to different platforms.
> 
> Key word: PORT
> 
> APR isn't a kitchen sink of functionality. It is a portability library.
> 
> Didn't we just get done talking about this?

We just got done discussing the mission statement, which tells us what we
are going after, but doesn't list what those features are.  :-)

> > APR never uses tables, at least the only place I see tables is in the
> > tables.c file.
> 
> I have no problem being consistent. If tables aren't used, then yah... I'm
> fine with seeing them moved out of APR. Hell, if it weren't for all the
> legacy Apache code that used tables, I'd dump them in favor of apr_hash_t.

No.  Its not just legacy code.  Tables and hashes have two different
purposes, and trying to force one when the other is the correct solution
is just wrong.

> > APR only uses arrays in the canonical stuff, and I'm pretty sure it could
> > be removed easily.
> 
> Well, we shouldn't make our life difficult just to toss a type. But if the
> arrays don't make sense, then yah. I have no problem with tossing them, too.

I'm pretty sure the canonical stuff can be done with just a straight
array, and we can ignore the Apache array_header stuff.

But I'm not for getting rid of these types.  They help people to write
portable programs.  These are all routines that are useful on any
platform, regardless of whether they are inherently portable or not.

> > I just took a quick look at NSPR, which is what APR was originally based
> > on, and they have a linked list structure.  Linked lists are also
> > inherently portable.
> 
> So? That's NSPR. We're talking about APR here :-)

Yes, but we have always looked to NSPR for help.  The whole interval_time
stuff is a direct translation from NSPR.  You can't just start ignoring
NSPR just because you don't like it.

> > What is there now, is database
> > code, which in my mind is at a higher level than SHA1 and Base64.
> 
> 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.

Greg, please define portability.  According to a dictionary it is:

   3.Computer Science. Relating to or being software that can run on two
     or more kinds of computers or with two or more kinds of operating
     systems. 

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.

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.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message