Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:58:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: (Probabaly foolish) os.c/os.h question
In-Reply-To: <000201bf93b9$d4b4e140$345985d0@corecomm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003220357410.27878-100000@nebula.lyra.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I don't think they should exist. Dunno what's in there now, but it seems
that (logically) they should be axed in favor of APR.

Cheers,
-g

p.s. I've never heard of the ApacheOS project. Do you mean src/os/ ?

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> I've wrapped up modularizing ap and apr (at the package level, if not down
> to individual components).  I'm a little stuck, so would someone help clue
> me in to this?
> 
> It seems that os.c and os.h are dinosaurs.  (That's why we needed APR :~)
> So much so, that the only thing left in the win32 are some declares to
> util_win32 that belong in the ApacheCore project, and some threading I've
> only found referenced by winnt.c.  I'm wondering where from here?
> 
> Q.1 - Should os.c (to win32 builds) be killed off entirely, with the code
>       thrown into winnt.c until we use apr threads?  or...
> 
> Q.2 - Can we knock out the ApacheOS project, and leave os.c/os.h
> 	to be wrapped into the ApacheCore project?  They just doesn't
> 	seem to call for a library.
> 
> Q.3 - Is this the end for os.c/os.h?  Were they to be sqaushed by APR?
> 
> Thanks in advance for explanations and thoughts.
> 
> Bill
> 

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