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
--