apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject RE: apr-util comments
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:36:51 GMT

> > 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?

+1 package
-0.5 src/package

I disagree with the first argument above, because in reality we are going
to want a structure similar to APR, where each package can be enabled and
disabled on the configure line.  Once we add that, (to both apr and
apr-utils) the find has to go away regardless.

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

View raw message