From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > We can stratify and create as many layers in Apache as we want to put up > > with. But when we're talking about a *portability* library, then it should > > focus on just that. > > All of the code we are talking about is portable code, it may not have > portability issues itself, but programs that use this code do have > portability issues, and have an MD5 hash or SHA1 and Base64 encoding do > allow those programs to be more portable.
As a poor, downtrodden Win32 guy... I entirely agree. There is lots of stuff implemented as unix/v or freebsd libraries that just aren't portable without cygwin. We aren't trying to be cygwin, but trying to offer some cross platform fn's with native optmizations. There is nothing wrong with translations, hashing, tables or encodings implemented in APR, there just has to be someone who might need the features. I'm questioning if/how much of/ iconv we should be distributing. But any which way, we should be providing these simple data types to make c coding easier and more portable across platforms. We rejected a mission statment that said apr was nothing but portability... the fns we are discussing are all very reasonable tools to include in APR (including base64/sha1). Put them into a 'lib' or 'util' section, or whatever, but arguing is pointless.
