Joe Orton wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:22:01PM +0100, david reid wrote: >> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the >> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually >> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the >> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util. >> >> I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at >> what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the >> project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so >> having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may >> be a win for them as well. >> >> I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we >> should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The >> overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be >> also minimal. > > Well, it's only when you propose something specific that it can really > be considered! The 3-point rule for "what stuff should go in apr-util" > that everyone seemed happy with was that it should be small, good, and > useful. Adding *all* of apreq's library/*.c would certainly fail the > size test, I'd say.
Erm, well if people are happy enough with the basic concept then I'll start suggesting patches, but I wanted to give people the opportunity to look at what was there and decide if it was a good fit for apr-util before I started proposing. If I'd dropped a whole load of patches without any form of comment that would have been frowned upon as well wouldn't it? I am well aware of the size requirements... I was trying to be "diplomatic", but maybe I shouldn't have been? -- david http://feathercast.org/
