On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:15:38AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Umm, I think Jon just meant that it belongs as a subproject of > httpd. I agree with that - it doesn't belong in APR. And, yes, > I believe that httpd-2.0 can use el-kabong (much in the manner > that Daniel described).
Sure, httpd can use el-kabong, but does it need it _today_? Flood could use it today. Other than flood, are there any other projects that could use it _today_? > Yes, I extend the focus of httpd to include clients as well. > flood's there. So should serf and (possibly) el-kabong. Flood is there to test the server. Serf is a (nonexistant) client library, initially slated for HTTP but not necessarily protocol specific. They are both in the correct places. > To me, APR is only about raw system-level portability - not about > producing portable libraries. I'm confused how that got distorted > the way it has. -- justin APR is whatever we want it to be. If we start building things on top of APR that are functionally distinct from other projects under the ASF, then I believe it makes sense to keep them as subprojects of APR. Either we extend the meaning of APR to mean "any portable libraries" or we take away the "server" in "HTTP Server Project". -aaron
