apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>
Subject Re: [time to move on I guess] APR_TMP_DIRECTORY
Date Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:05:01 GMT

On 9 Dec 2002 cmpilato@collab.net wrote:

> sensible here, but I get this feeling that you're trying to push some
> sort of "programmer's best practices" policy agenda via crippling the
> portability layer.

Yes, absolutely, guilty as charged.

> This *is* a portability question.

Well this is the crux- I think that this going further than abstracting
what the OS offer; but trying to put a layer on what a specific machine
offers or a specific operations environment.

> It *is* inside the domain of the portability layer.  It *does* belong in
> APR.

Therefore it it is my strong opinion that this is outside the domain of
portability and therefore should not be part of APR.

Anything which does more than abstracting the pure OS but touches on an
instance of it I see as bad. And yes - if you draw the parallel to an
almost ridiclious extend; I do think exactly the same when I see
./Configure picking things up such as my 'gdbm' in /usr/local/lib and run
into trouble when I run the binary on the diskless machine an hour later.

> And heck, you can compose the 2-page "why you shouldn't use this" and
> stick in the header file yourself if you'd like.

Should it ever end up in APR - you bet I will :-) as it concerns me
deeply; and I've been bitten by this problem too many times.


View raw message