apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: APR 2.0 proposals
Date Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:17:01 GMT
Ryan Phillips wrote:

> I agree APR and APR-util should be combined into one, but I hate the notion
> of chunking the library into multiple parts.  If a developer wants to
> disable a feature, then a simple --without-xml or --without-dbm should
> suffice. 

This works if you have built the library from source, or have built the 
library for embedded use (as you have), but when apr is deployed as a 
generic system library on a generic system (a significant use case), 
then this doesn't work.

Thinking about this for a bit, I think splitting the build into libapr, 
libapr-ldap, libapr-xml, etc is the best way forward on this one.


View raw message