Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: rbb@covalent.net
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: RE: Draft proposal: Win32 Compilation Environment Step 1
In-Reply-To: <000201bfa87f$175320a0$345985d0@corecomm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0004170844080.6013-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Draft proposal: Win32 Compilation Environment Step 1
> > 
> > +1 on blasting the makefiles, provided it is very easy to 
> > regen them when using VC++ 5.
> 
> It is, once I've posted the Apache.dsw.
> 
> > I am ambivilant about whether APR is a dll or is statically 
> > 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.

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?

Ryan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------