apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Justin Erenkrantz" <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Optimized MD5 implementation from OpenSSL
Date Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:47:18 GMT
On 1/3/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > Here on the list and at every hackathon/ApacheCon for the last few years.
>
> Searching body text of the history for 'merge apr' or 'combine apr' yields
> no results, pointer please.  Undocumented hackathon discussions are not
> valid citations.

I didn't say they were decisions (which need to be made on-list), but
discussions.  *shrug*

> >> Now - I thought the public discussion lists were moving twords disolving
> >> APR-util into smaller libraries, dependent on specific features that
> >> wouldn't swallow the entire world of unnecessary library functionality
> >> into every runtime?
> >
> > That's part of the discussions that have been here on list, but
> > frankly, I've never seen anyone say how a dynamic APR would work
> > reliably.  In fact, I think the eventual consensus was that
> > splitting-off approach could never work at all.
>
> Where is that documented?

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/200608.mbox/%3C7edfeeef0608110942h8caf669t96585359a5c61f17@mail.gmail.com%3E

That's how I interpreted the outcome of that thread.

> Please don't start a thread on "Our agreed way to ..." when in fact there's
> no documented technical discussion, and start a fresh thread to attempt to
> argue that svn or log4cxx really needs to load libldap/liblber.

They load them today, so your argument that we must prevent that in
2.0 is bollocks.  Frankly, the idea that APR is used without APR-util
is not supported by any actual evidence.  IMHO, it'd make everyone's
life far simpler if we faced reality and combine them into one
library.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message