Garrett Rooney wrote: > On 1/13/07, Lucian Adrian Grijincu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> anyways, my former question stands: how would you like apr to deal >> with this issue: have a secondary constructor, or have a new set of >> objects (or just forget about it)? > > In general, it seems like if we can't provide a cross-platform API > with this new low level interface, I don't see the point in using it > at all... If it's absolutely going to require new interfaces with > special cases to make it work, then I'm not sure what the real benefit > would be. I mean this is a "Portable Runtime", after all.
Agreed. If it doesn't represent a portable construction, don't pollute apr with it, but deploy it in your applications when you desire. If you have to do an #if PLATFORM to use an apr feature, it's broken and shouldn't have been an apr feature.
