apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject more on the charter (was: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser)
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:43:13 GMT
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:39PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > Flood is there to test the server. Serf is a (nonexistant) client
> > library, initially slated for HTTP but not necessarily protocol
> > specific. They are both in the correct places.
> Couple of things.  APR-serf is only ever going to support HTTP.  That was
> in fact a requirement when the project was accepted.  We specifically
> stated that there were other projects with acceptable licesnses that do
> multiple protocols, we were only interested in HTTP.

Yup. At least to get it started. Over the long haul? Unknown. I'd be -0.5 on
it, but I'm just one vote :-)

> > > To me, APR is only about raw system-level portability - not about
> > > producing portable libraries.  I'm confused how that got distorted
> > > the way it has.  -- justin

Per my other email... it has not been distorted.

> > APR is whatever we want it to be. If we start building things on

You bet!

> > top of APR that are functionally distinct from other projects under
> > the ASF, then I believe it makes sense to keep them as subprojects
> > of APR. Either we extend the meaning of APR to mean "any portable
> > libraries" or we take away the "server" in "HTTP Server Project".

Per the Board, we are *already* about portable libraries.

> APR is NOT what we make it.  The APR project has a VERY well defined
> mission and goal.  Take a look at the web site:
> " The mission of the Apache Portable Runtime (APR) is to provide a free
> library of C data structures and routines, forming a system portability
> layer to as many operating systems as possible, including Unices, MS
> Win32, BeOS and OS/2. "
> This wasn't arbitrary, the mission was decided upon at the start of the
> project, and it was approved by the board.  Changing that mission requires
> acceptance by the entire PMC, and the board must approve it.

Not at all. You're mischaracterizing it entirely. That mission is a
self-selected mission. In fact, it isn't even accurate since we have
incorporated other items into what we are doing. Thus, our consensual
mission, as defined by our actions, no longer aligns with our stated
mission. That is a documentation problem.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the charter from the Board, nor we
do need Board approval for adding things like E-K.


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

View raw message