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: Portable across Operating Systems, or Libraries?
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:43:15 GMT
Greg Stein wrote:

> Portable across *libraries*
> 
> I always associate "portable" with operating systems. Not using
> different APIs. Personally, I'm finding it a little weird that APR is
> in the business of creating common APIs for third-party libraries.

Portability crosses OSes, it crosses different versions of OSes shipping
different versions of the same library, and it crosses different
implementations of the same functionality provided on different OSes.

The general test I think should be applied for "does it fit in the set
of APR projects" is "does functionality X involve the jumping through of
many system specific hoops before it works on both system A and system B".

The more specific test of "does it belong in apr proper" could be "does
the functionality make portable that requiring only libraries that could
realistically be expected to be found natively on most of the systems
covered, like libc or the the socket libs where not included in libc".

> Well, the discussion has been about folding all the libraries into
> one, so I'm not sure people will be willing to create another :-P

Fair enough, in that case, fold the apr-util stuff that isn't
modularised into apr, and leave apr-util to be the modularised libraries
themselves. :)

I don't see any problem with APR creating common APIs where no common
API exists (dbd, crypto), or adding common APIs where people have tacked
on incompatible extensions to an existing standard API (LDAP + TLS/SSL).

The common APIs exist because there is a need for them.

Regards,
Graham
--

Mime
View raw message