apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: Lua co-routines
Date Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:19:58 GMT
On 26 Sep 2015, at 9:11 PM, Branko Čibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:

> Whilst I agree that co-routines are useful, I don't see a good reason to
> fold this into APR. I feel that APR has already departed far from its
> "portable runtime" promise. With database connectors and whatnot it's
> become a bit of a mastodont. We really should rethink what we're doing
> here; APR is no longer the "Apache (httpd) Portable Runtime", it's used
> by other projects that don't need all the luggage.

Yep, APR v1 got it right, with the portable runtime in APR, and “bigger stuff that integrates
with APR (usually APR pools)” in apr-util.

Now we have one big monolithic APR v2, and it isn’t ideal.

> And furthermore, it's not 1999 any more: the reasons why it was a good
> idea to bundle, e.g., an XML parser or a BerkeleyDB frontend into APR
> are no longer valid. I wish we'd pared APR-2.0 down to the basics of
> memory management, filsystem and I/O abstraction. We surely don't want
> to invent yet another coprocessing library.

The main reasons you’d want to do this are to integrate cleanly with APR pools. I just had
to use POSIX message queues and ended building an “APR like” abstraction for them so they
would integrate nicely, it is a good thing these things exist.


View raw message