apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: APR 2.0 proposals
Date Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:24:17 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. 

Not really - we need to all play against APR installed in a common location.
This makes the whole "I only need xml and ldap" usage model a real PITA.

> What is the benefit in chunking a library?  In the case with embedded
> projects (which I work on), I am more inclined to simply disable the bits I
> am not using on the configure line and be done.  I don't care that they are
> split into libapr-xml and friends.

Agreed, I don't mind a new model of apr-1-config --using-xml --using-ldap
to get compile options.

But I'm not sure a whole slew of libaprfeature-2.so linkages is the answer,
especially for a complex use case like httpd.

Bill

Mime
View raw message