Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 35471 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2001 04:46:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 35460 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 04:46:44 -0000 Message-ID: <046201c1470f$805944a0$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: References: <20010926214644.CDBCF46DFF@koj.rkbloom.net> <20010926152142.K4050@lyra.org> <20010926153312.I21915@ebuilt.com> <20010926155218.M4050@lyra.org> <20010926162246.M1168@waka.ebuilt.net> <20010926170344.Q4050@lyra.org> <20010926174529.S1168@waka.ebuilt.net> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] apr-client Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:43:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2001 04:47:24.0650 (UTC) FILETIME=[805944A0:01C1470F] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Roy T. Fielding" Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:45 PM > > I'm still in favor of apr-client. If we want to rename the top-level CVS > > directory at some point, then fine... > > Okay, assuming the APR PMC wants to take it on as a responsibility. +1 here, since this proves the APR Project must eat it's own dogfood :-))) Think _lightweight_ guys ... if this gets unmanageable, it might need to become it's own project. And I agree with the assertion that APR = Portability Runtime, APR-UTIL = Portable Runtime Utilities. We can extend that just as long as we remember that APR (primary) never contains anything except portability, and APR-UTIL shouldn't grow in -huge- chunks (if it exceeds 10k lines of code, it probably warrents it's own codebase.) Sure sounds like apr-client could fit the bill. Bill