apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <cliffwool...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] apr-client
Date Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:36:50 GMT
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:

> I agree with Roy about this.  This doesn't really have anything to do
> with creating a portability run-time.  It really should be an httpd
> sub-project.

The only distinction I can make in my mind is library versus application.
Around these here parts, when we think library, we (reflexively) think
APR.  I mean come on, most of the stuff in apr-util has nothing to do with
portability.  That's (mainly) why that stuff got put in apr-util and not
in APR.  It didn't go in httpd because we wanted a library, which made us
think "the APR group should handle this".  Whatever... I don't really care
where it goes.  I just think it's a really good idea in general.

--Cliff

--------------------------------------------------------------
   Cliff Woolley
   cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
   Charlottesville, VA



Mime
View raw message