httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: hooks
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2000 05:41:32 GMT
> From: Life is hard, and then you die [mailto:ronald@innovation.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 6:51 PM
> 
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 04:10:21PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 
> > > If everybody is happy with lib/utils then I'll attempt to 
> > > beat you to it for the md5, sha1, base64, getpass, etc.
> > 
> > I would still really like to see all of these files in APR.  They all use
> > APR types, and although the code is all common for all platforms, they are
> > portability issues for most programs.  By moving them into different
> > directories within APR, we can enable and disable them at 
> compile time.
> 
> What portability issues? The ebcdic stuff is now in apr (ap_xlate, or so
> I assume), and I can't think of any others. Last time I asked about
> this, Greg was against moving them into apr and other-Bill was for it -
> other than that nobody cared. I'm equally split on whether to put it in
> apr or lib/utils.

Ok... APR being APR, and we had very, very little in the way of ap code
left, I strongly felt that should move.  I believed it should become part
of APR.

In hindsite, I realize why many were against this.  And I think, given
what everyone is suggesting for all the "module helper" code, that there
is room for a lib/aputil style library.  The existing ap stuff belongs
there, and so should all the xml stuff.

The difference?  No lib/aputil stuff should EVER change from processor
to processor, compiler to compiler, or os to os.

If it isn't that generic, then it's a portability problem (al la APR).

And if it is truly platform process or security model dependent, than
it belongs in the MPM or the potential future SMM.

Bill


Mime
View raw message