apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: APR: Portable across Operating Systems, or Libraries?
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:42:19 GMT
Why? Maintenance cost. Plain and simple.

Is APR truly used on these other platforms? I've gotta believe there
is some data on that somewhere.

Then, there is the age-old answer, "those edge cases can stick to APR
1.x and HTTPD 2.x." Modern operating systems would use APR 2.x and
HTTPD 3.x.


On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 13:24, Ryan Bloom <rbloom@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do you want to jettison "edge platforms"?  The original goal was to keep
> HTTPd as portable as 1.3 was, which meant APR had to support mainframes,
> OS/2, etc.  All of those edge platforms are what made APR challenging to
> create and maintain, but they also provide a lot of value for the people who
> want their code to work on mainframes, but don't want to write their own
> portability library.
> Removing this support takes away a web server (at the very least) from
> openBeOS, OS400, OS/2, etc.  While these platforms may not be mainstream
> these days, dropping support for them from HTTPd (the natural result of
> dropping support from APR) seems like a decision that can only be made after
> discussion with APR's users, not the developers of APR itself.
> Just a few thoughts from the gallery.
> Ryan
> Ryan Bloom
> rbb@apache.org
> rbb@rkbloom.net
> rbloom@gmail.com
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> When thinking about 2.0, I'm having a hard time with the idea of
>>> pulling apr-util into regular apr. We've got a lot of stuff in
>>> apr-util that has nothing to do with "Portability". Basically, I see
>>> apr-util doing one of two types of things:
>>> * common API to access functionality (dbd, ldap, crypto)
>>> * useful functionality built on APR
>>> I think it would be great if we could concentrate on just a core APR
>>> that offers OS portability, and that we also jettison "edge" platforms
>>> (keep posix and windows only). And that we trim out functionality
>>> (i.e. apr_tables) that have nothing to do with portability (tho we
>>> keep pools as a lifetime mgmt capability for OS objects).
>>> Thoughts?
>> I think both apr and apr-util are still both based on the idea of
>> "portability".
>> In apr, the focus is on making individual or "small" sets of functions
>> available in a portable way, while the focus of apr-util is to have "large"
>> or "complex" sets of functionality (access a database, access an LDAP
>> server, encrypt a string) available in a portable way.
>> That said you're right that some parts of it, like tables, fall into the
>> category of "useful stuff" rather than "portable stuff". Perhaps an idea
>> could be to move the "useful stuff" into (a want for a better name)
>> apr-useful, which would be the "useful stuff" library built on top of the
>> portability provided by apr.
>> Regards,
>> Graham
>> --

View raw message