httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe+apa...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)
Date Mon, 13 Jan 2003 04:30:15 GMT
Eli Marmor <marmor@netmask.it> 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

Mime
View raw message