Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020903143034.02daec68@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:55:55 -0500
To: Jon Travis <jtravis@covalent.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: El-Kabong -- HTML Parser
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org, dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20020903120014.A27262@covalent.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209031446340.20682-100000@shell.ntrnet.net>
 <20020903113510.A26452@covalent.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209031446340.20682-100000@shell.ntrnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 02:00 PM 9/3/2002, Jon Travis wrote:
>Either one is fine to me.  Integrating the code into apr-util is probably
>an easier setup, but will require more work to adapt to the build system
>and change the symbols (and of course I'm quite liking the name
>'el-kabong' ;-)).

That's sort of the concensus.  It seems the majority is pro-apr-util but
we will let Greg announce that.  He already has the sources, so it shouldn't
be any trouble for him to import them once we have the signed contributors
agreement on file.

Others may still be interested in reviewing the code.  To those folks,
don't hesitate to email John requesting the evaluation sources.  But those
who've reviewed the code is reasonably happy with it.  Once the code
is part of the ASF process, the usual banter can erupt over how best to
improve the code.  I for one, am much happier with the current streamed
implementation than a read-in-the-whole-danged-file into a tree approach :-)

AFA el-kabong, we should definitely keep that colorful history note in
the sources :-)  But I have a major issue with oddball names when 'html'
or 'html-parser' is more than sufficient [inside of a bigger library.]  Things
need to be obvious to new adopters.  This is my pet peeve with the Jakarta
project.  [Hundreds of names, who can keep track of what they all do :-?]

>I'm not in a rush, I just like to know where things stand.  Since this
>discussion is seemingly happening off-list, I can't differentiate between
>no discussion or a heated one.  I'd prefer this to be on-list, as I
>think it does affect the users of APR, and it would allow me to monitor
>the progress here.

Sorry.  No cloke-n-dagger star chamber here.  We've been polling all the
members of the ASF about where are we headed.  Does the ASF become
yet another Sourceforge?  If not (and the near-unanimous consensus is no,
we don't want to be a Sourceforge, they do that just fine themselves), then
how do we qualify and distinguish our projects?  How do we keep active
communities?  How do we group the newer client-side elements, when the
httpd project is focused on the server-side?

All of which makes for entertaining discussion, but some of this debate
is probably just off-topic for developers lists.  The httpd and apr lists are
busy enough without all of the "Why el-kabong belongs here" rants on
every side of the coin.  Rest assured, that's the debate, not whether or
not we accept the code.  Most everyone seems pleased that including
this code [somewhere] would be a "Good Thing"(R)(sm) :-)

Bill