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 15:49:14 GMT
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 16:18, Ryan Bloom <rbloom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>> Ryan Bloom 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.
>>
>> I pulled support win 95/98/ME support from httpd because the operating
>> system is abandoned.  We should drop 'fringe' OS's that are no longer
>> maintained by anyone.  Those uses can certainly still use existing apps
>> developed long ago for apr, and 0.9/1.x would still get critical security
>> or bug fixes, but moving forwards nobody wants the complaints on those
>> platforms which can't be resolved when platform issues occur, eh?
>
> The comparison to 95/98/ME is also a bit disingenuous.  Those aren't, and
> never were, intended to be server platforms, they are consumer operating
> systems, and were marketed as such.  The others were marketed as server
> operating systems, and I believe are still in use today.

Eh? WTF does "server" have to do with anything? APR is a runtime for
*all* applications. APR's second largest consumer is SVN, and it runs
on desktops all over the planet. If Apache weren't so freakin'
popular, I might actually say there are more installs of the svn
client than the httpd server.

(fwiw, I typically say there are 5-10 million svn users)

So back to Bill's point: dropping platforms is fine and, I believe,
warranted, so that we can focus more heavily on the platforms that
matter *today*. It's got nothing to do with "server".

>> Is BeOS gone?  Is OS/2 gone yet?  Netware is effectively gone, AIUI, as
>> it's a maintenance-only phase out cycle.
>
> It makes sense to drop support when the OS has effectively been dropped by
> its manufacturer, and the userbase is gone.  BeOS is dead, but OpenBeOS
> still exists as an open source effort.  OS/2 is still in wide use in banks
> in Europe the last I heard.  Mainframes are still in wide use and support by
> their manufacturers.  NetWare, don't know frankly.

OpenBeOS ... I bet you they have a posix layer that we can build
against. (if not, then they're sucking on a dearth of software...)

Think those banks will be using APR? Not me.

Mainframes? Run Linux on them.

NetWare? It's in maintenance, so I doubt they're going to *rebuild*
against an APR 2.x library.

> The fact that I we just saw mainframe patches go into the tree (what started
> this whole conversation), and I vaguely remember seeing NetWare patches in
> the last 6 months or so indicates that there is still some level of support
> for developing on those platforms.

That's not what started it. I think that APR is outside of its scope,
and wanted to ask about getting back to basics: provide platform
portability, not APIs for third-party libraries.

Cheers,
-g

Mime
View raw message