apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Apache Portable Runtime artifacts
Date Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:20:02 GMT

On Nov 9, 2008, at 4:31 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:

> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> I was thinking that the artifact name could be
>> apr-<osname>-<processor>
>> e.g. apr-linux-x86_64.   Or we can have a more general
>> apr-<osname>-<processor>-<configuration>
>> where configuration is a token that represents a particular  
>> configuration of options, e.g. apr-msdos-8086-aztecc.
>> I don't use the apr-util code.  Can you explain what extra  
>> dependencies there are?
>
> APR is typically installed at the system level, as a JVM would be,  
> and being installed at a system level it would have a number of  
> system dependencies installed along with it, some of which are  
> optional.
>
> In order to better understand the solution to this, can you explain  
> the problem you are trying to solve?
>
> Am I correct in assuming that you would like to access APR from Java  
> (like tomcat does)?
>
> If this is correct, it may make more sense to deploy the JNI  
> bindings for APR into the maven repo, and then have those bindings  
> depend on the system installed version of APR.

You bring up a good point in that it might be a good idea to describe  
the target deployments.  I'm sure that the APR team lives in a  
different universe than I.  You probably have to make sure that the  
code is general enough to run on my son's bluetooth enabled talking  
giraffe as well as stock Linux and Windows Vista boxes.  I'm sure the  
combinatorial space that you guys have to deal with is boggling.

I think in this case, my case, we only need to worry about a few stock  
configurations, e.g. Linux and Windows.  For me that would handle  
99.9% of my universe.  More exotic configurations can use the naming  
conventions that we are currently working out and publish on an as  
needed basis; I don't anticipate this happening often.

To give some more color to what I want to do, I want to make OSGi  
bundles for APR.  For example, I need access to raw network sockets.   
I don't want downstream users of my bundles to have to stitch by hand  
build runtime libraries to get my stuff to work.  In my narrow world  
it's inconvenient and, I believe, unnecessary.


Regards,
Alan


Mime
View raw message