> From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:59 AM > > > > Spent a bit of time reviewing the thread and I still think the Samba team > > proposal looks > > very worthwhile (and it scratches a couple of itches for me :-). The NAL > > enables an > > architecturally clean solution to a whole class of problems. +1 on > > implementing against > > the API posted by Sander. I expect we will tweak things as we begin to use > > the API but it > > is an excellent start. And I agree with the concensus that we not commit > > code untill after > > Apache 2.0 is released. > > You misssed it :-) Commit code to apr. That's not the issue. > > Until we can prove an overwhelming requirement, and begin Apache 2.1 tree > developement, > simply _don't__use__the__code__in__httpd_. That's all I'm asking. If this > is a useful > library, we will introduce things. > > Perhaps we need to keep in STATUS a list of 'release' features, 'beta' > features, and > 'under development-experimental' features. So parts of apr and apr-util can > evolve, but > avoid pi$$ing people off that we keep 'breaking' it. > > Just a suggestion, any comments? >
Only that getting NAL into APR -could- break the API (maybe I'm wrong about that) and that would impact Apache 2.0. Yea, I am being httpd centric :-) But your point is taken and I generally agree. Bill
