apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com>
Subject Re: apr_reslist semantics
Date Tue, 13 May 2008 08:58:42 GMT
On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:07:03 +0100
Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:10:14PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> > Like Roy, I'm frustrated with aprutil's dependency madness, and I'm
> > working right now on abstracting out apu-util into a loadable
> > module.  At this point a --with-ldap build on linux FC8 is
> > producing this pile of crap as bindings for those applications with
> > no use for ldap;
> That is a 2.0 discussion not a 1.3 discussion. (and see msgid 
> 20071123103706.GA4169@redhat.com)
> For 1.x, libaprutil must continue to contain functions which use
> symbols defined by the LDAP library;

Only if built --with-ldap (to state the bleedin' obvious).

>  changing each function call into
> an indirected dynamic-symbol-lookup-and-function-call would be an 
> unmaintainable hack.

But that's not the proposal on the table!  Noone is suggesting
changing any function call, API or even ABI.  Merely how the
code is loaded.

>	  Since downstream users must also continue to be 
> linked against those LDAP libraries by virtue of linking against 
> libaprutil, it would also be a redundant hack.

That is a misfeature of the current build procedure.
I don't see why it can't be changed.  Or indeed left as
a compile-time option to users, whether to build LDAP
and other modules as static or dynamic (and in the
latter case, LDAP support becomes a runtime choice).

Dynamic building will be a tremendous aid to anyone
wanting to support multiple LDAP libraries, too.
We have some open bugs concerning LDAP that could easily
be down to static linking and less-than-100%-compatible
library versions.

Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book

View raw message