On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > 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.
Per my other post, that is the difference between "portability" and "portable." All the APR* code is portable, and APR itself is the means for portability. :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
