apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: apr-util comments
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:02:45 GMT
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:51:59PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:32 PM
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:38:45PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >...
> > > Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within apr-util?
> > > Can't we keep to the same simplicity as apr itself?  Suggesting, therefore,
> > > that we aught to have apr-util/buckets rather than apr-util/src/buckets.
> > > The extra branch doesn't accomplish anything for us, and makes it harder
> > > to jump between repositories.
> > 
> > Two reasons:
> > 
> > 1) we locate all the objects to add to the library using "find". it is
> >    easier to find them under "src/" rather than enumerating each source
> >    subdir. We can't use "." because that would pick up "test/".
> > 
> > 2) to keep the top-level cleaner. we have eight groups of functionality in
> >    apr-util/src/. tossing those up a level would make that a bit more
> >    confusing. Currently, the top-level has: build/, docs/, include/, src/,
> >    and test/. Each is obvious in purpose.
> 
> Compelling, but can we agree to agree between apr and apr-util?
> 
> I'm +.5 for applying this same structure to apr (by the benefits 
> you cite above.)
> 
> I'm -1 for leaving things as they are, and would live with apr-util following
> the structure of apr (and that is a veto, my head was spinning the other day).
> 
> Anyone else care to vote for the src/package/ or simply package/ structure?

Subtle benefit: If we add the same structure to APR, then we can use the
same "find" mechanism for relinking the library (thereby avoiding the darn
relink every time you do a "make" in there).

Cheers,
-g

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

Mime
View raw message