apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From david reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: apreq -> apr-util
Date Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:27:32 GMT
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:22:01PM +0100, david reid wrote:
>> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
>> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
>> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
>> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
>>
>> I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at
>> what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the
>> project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so
>> having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may
>> be a win for them as well.
>>
>> I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we
>> should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The
>> overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be
>> also minimal.
> 
> Well, it's only when you propose something specific that it can really 
> be considered!  The 3-point rule for "what stuff should go in apr-util" 
> that everyone seemed happy with was that it should be small, good, and 
> useful.  Adding *all* of apreq's library/*.c would certainly fail the 
> size test, I'd say.

Erm, well if people are happy enough with the basic concept then I'll
start suggesting patches, but I wanted to give people the opportunity to
look at what was there and decide if it was a good fit for apr-util
before I started proposing. If I'd dropped a whole load of patches
without any form of comment that would have been frowned upon as well
wouldn't it? I am well aware of the size requirements...

I was trying to be "diplomatic", but maybe I shouldn't have been?

-- 
david

http://feathercast.org/

Mime
View raw message