Message-ID: <375A3C18.5A8DEEFC@lyra.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 02:15:04 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Allow modules to add libraries
References: <19990606110236.A12148@engelschall.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>... 
> Hmmm... I've no great objection to Ben's patch and idea in general, except
> that it looks inconsistent. When we allow to adjust the libraries via "Libs:",
> we also should allow "CFlags:", "LdFlags:", etc. But this OTOH is not really
> necessary, because inside ConfigStart...ConfigEnd you're more flexible (you
> can expand variables, etc.). So I still don't see a great advantage from
> having "Libs:" in contrast to ``LIBS="$LIBS ..."''. Instead I've to conclude
> that just providing "Libs:" is only a half-way solution and will confuse
> people more than it provides advantages. Ben, where exactly is the benefit
> from using "Libs:" above a config section instead of changing LIBS in the
> config section itself? I guess I've overlooked an important intention here,
> right?

I believe that it is significantly better to use the Libs: type
approach, as opposed to the LIBS= programmatic approach.

In other words: declarative is much better than programmatic.

Corollary: the more that you can move from a programmatic approach to a
declarative approach, then the better off you are.

In this sense, I fully support Ben's patch over the more general
programmatic style offered by ConfigStart/ConfigEnd.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/