I'd like to see the APR::* into a separate package on CPAN and apreq to stay as it is now. Why? Because it can be used on different environments and different servers. For example I want to use apreq with ActiveState's PerlEx on IIS without the need to install Apache and mod_perl.
"Joe Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Now that we've got a release of libapreq2 > out the door, it's a good time to think about > the direction of the project going forward. > So let's take a look at where we are now, > and figure out where we want to be in a year > from now, and map out some goals for getting > there. > > Right now we have a handful of active committers, > with myself volunteering to play RM; pgollucci has > volunteered to improve the website & docs, which are > priorities now, and randyk supports the win32 platform. > Other committers like maxk provide review and oversight, > although not for the release tarball this time. This > time we got lots of help from httpd'ers, who have > expressed an interest in seeing this list absorbed > into [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think that's a good idea, so long as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > can withstand the occasional question about our > perl glue. Someday I'd actually like to see > trunk/glue/perl moved over to mod_perl's trunk, > and our C code folded into httpd somehow, but > that may take some time doing. Anyways, since > we're mapping out goals in this thread I think > that should be our long-term one. > > Getting there would involve moving this list into > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and our commit list to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; tackling > the automake problem, writing better docs/webpages, > improving the maintainability of the codebase. > We'd have to stop trying to be an aggregation > point for the httpd and mod-perl communities, and > instead work more directly within each community. > I think people are generally too busy with their > respective projects to build this community into > a separate TLP, and our scope can stay smaller without > trying to be a separate project: we can just be > about the Perl and C apis as we have always been. > Glue writers for other languages seem to be content > with libapreq1 for the most part, and haven't been > motivated to contribute directly to the libapreq2 > codebase. > > So what are your thoughts about the future of apreq? > -- > Joe Schaefer > >
