httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject RE: Draft proposal: Win32 Compilation Environment Step 1
Date Tue, 18 Apr 2000 01:33:17 GMT
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein []
> > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:32 PM
> > Forget delay loading and all that stuff. Statically link APR into
> > apache.exe and be done with it.
> I'm quite certain you mean link apr into apachecore.dll, and have
> a single core executable (don't you?)  ApacheCore.dll has been around
> a very, very long time, and I don't think we are even talking about
> changing it.

Basically. I space on the support proggies and the separate modules. The
separate modules would be linking against apachecore.dll, so the above
static link would work. It wouldn't help for the support proggies.

> It's not ApacheCore I'm worrying about, it's really all those little
> support exe's running around (log resolution, passwords etc) that
> need apr.  Do we link to them all, or put them in the same folder
> and be done with it?

See my recent post.

My main emphasis here is *SIMPLIFY*. I've seen a bunch of posts about how
we can do it <this> way, or <that> way, or gee! how about <like this>.
It's getting silly.

Create APR.DLL and APR.LIB. Done.

Put APR.DLL into one or more directories as needed.

APR.LIB sits around somewhere, so that <foo> can use it to link against
the APR.DLL stuff.

No more options. No more alternatives. Simple.

If somebody wants an alternative, then let them reconfig the .dsp. There
is nothing inherent in APR that prevents a static build or anything.

Simplify simplify simplify.


Greg Stein,

View raw message