On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > I agree with Roy about this. This doesn't really have anything to do > with creating a portability run-time. It really should be an httpd > sub-project.
The only distinction I can make in my mind is library versus application. Around these here parts, when we think library, we (reflexively) think APR. I mean come on, most of the stuff in apr-util has nothing to do with portability. That's (mainly) why that stuff got put in apr-util and not in APR. It didn't go in httpd because we wanted a library, which made us think "the APR group should handle this". Whatever... I don't really care where it goes. I just think it's a really good idea in general. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
