httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <stodd...@raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Draft proposal: Win32 Compilation Environment Step 1
Date Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:09:43 GMT
> > > linked into Apache.
> >
> > I'm not... I believe you will hear from rbb if we tried :-)
> > This really is a seperate support package, IMHO.  Why
> > bleed through the symbols for ApacheCore?
> >
>
> I have been avoiding this conversation, because I haven't touched Windows
> is a very long time.  I am actually working on getting a working NT system
> right now, so hopefully I will be able to help out on NT later today.
>
> I think APR should be a library on Windows.  Statically linking it with
> Apache is fine, when we are building an Apache dist, but if the only way
> to get APR to build is as a part of Apache, then the general usefulness of
> APR goes out the window.

Yes, I agree that we should be able to build APR seperate from Apache. My comment was
directed at APRs use in Apache.

>
> BTW, what's wrong with linking multiple programs against the same
> dll?  Why wouldn't we want to do this?  Isn't this the Windows way?
>
It causes more problems that it is worth in many cases and is sometimes referred to as
"DLL Hell". Ever notice that many Win32 install packages replace one or more of the
standard distribution DLLs?  Sometimes a later version dll is replaced by an earlier
version.  I'd prefer not to deal with it at the possible expense of a little extra
memory/storage usage.

Bill


Mime
View raw message