William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 06:41 PM 7/1/2004, Branko ÃÅibej wrote:
Thoughts? I think 1.0 is an auspicious time to make this change, especially if we declare apr-iconv to be an implementation detail of apr_xlate.
The nifty bit is, if we declare apr-iconv to be an internal, implementation
detail of apr_xlate - we are free to adopt your suggestions in 1.0.1 :)
That's true.
What is troubling us most, at this instant, are those things that change
the API in such a way that developer's code would be broken fixing the
problems of APR 1.0.0. As long as they are internal details (default
pathing, etc) then we won't be troubled by getting it right a little later.
Then I suggest we really do close off apr-iconv. This means the
apr-iconv headers shouldn't get installed, right? Among other things.
-- Brane
