Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 84183 invoked by uid 500); 25 May 2000 21:06:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 84172 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 21:06:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:05:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Greg Stein To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: binary compatibility for APR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 25 May 2000, Tony Finch wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: > >On Tue, 23 May 2000, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> On the other hand... > >> > >> If the app has APR statically linked, no problem... > > > >I was considering at link time, when the app links against "libapr.a", > >that APR_VERSION helps that case. > > IMO if the person compiling the application can't get the right > version of APR to link then they deserve to lose. And I'd expect > either the compile or the link to fail well before it gets to run > time. > > I don't see the point of this change. Since we have a function that needs to be called before anything else, it provides an easy, quick point to provide an idiot check. We build version checking into Apache itself, system libraries such as WinSock provide APIs for version checking, etc. This is a low-cost check which can quickly provide correct/clear feedback about a problem. "deserve to lose" ... sure, we can also write Apache in assembler and state that anybody who doesn't understand it "deserves to lose." :-) I don't see a reason to punish idiots :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/