httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Issac Goldstand" <>
Subject Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)
Date Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:07:04 GMT
I'm thinking that while apreq is going to be difficult to get into the main
httpd source tree, perhaps we might find it easier to convince them to adopt
some of the functions (I think what Eli referred to as "low-level functions"
in a previous email) as part of the apr-utils package.  I could see it
fitting in there...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Schaefer" <>
To: "Eli Marmor" <>
Cc: "apreq list" <>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)

> Eli Marmor <> writes:
> > Let me continue the idea that I raised in the past, because I believe
> > it may help convince ASF to adopt apreq into the main source tree:
> It's not easy to convince people of something without first
> involving them in the discussion.  Stas tried; I tried.
> Maybe three's a charm.  I wish you the best of luck.
> > We should separate the code to two layers; The lower will depend only
> > on APR/APR-UTIL,
> There was talk recently on dev@ about moving apr_buckets out of
> apr-util and into httpd.  If that happens it'd be a shame, but
> sometimes thems the breaks.
> If you're serious about making apreq-2 operate sans-httpd,
> by all means do it.  Just don't do it for apr/httpd's sake,
> because their lack of enthusiasm about apreq-2 will probably
> just frustrate you.  It sure frustrates me.
> So, do it for *our* users instead.  At the very least it would
> lead to a nice set of unit tests for apreq-2, since you'll have
> to write those to prove it actually works.  And if it does work,
> it will definitely go into *our* distribution.
> --
> Joe Schaefer

View raw message