[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg and I are pretty clear on our definition of what does and does not belong in APR, does anybody else have an opinion? We need to get this decided.
This is a tough question. On the one hand, Greg's right that your arguments can effectively be used in favour of putting any and all "useful" utility functions into ARP. On the other hand, one might just as easily use Greg's arguments to throw pools out of APR and put them in a separate utility library ...
To me, all of this speaks in favour of creating /another/ library for such not-sctrictly-portability stuff, and slowly moving the generic bits out of APR. For all I care this could mean splitting APR into a core and utility library, but keeping them conceptually together.
How much sense that makes is another matter.
-- Brane Čibej home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/ work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.hermes-softlab.com/ ACM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.acm.org/
