Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know that we have any active interest in 2.0.0 at this moment, > > Since I guess trunk is now 2.0.0, here's what I'd like to see: > > 1. fold in apr-util
+1, with the dso approach, it is not so harmful for apps to link to it, and it solves the mutex initialization problems reported by Joe. If this means apr-util/trunk disappears, that's fine. > and apr-iconv into apr trunk. -1; we need a different solution. citrus, something based on the work of the perl community (automated), or even IBM's ICU. There isn't the long term interest in maintaining this. > 2. move to a SCons-build system (if you don't have Python available in > 2009, your OS sucks) Create a sandbox, demonstrate it. Same goes for cmake fans. Time for a shootout to eliminate our current headaches. > 3. make pools runtime-configurable whether they are just a thin > malloc()/free() wrapper or do internal reuse Interesting, looking forwards to patches :) > I'm volunteering to do the grunt work for 1. I think I know someone > who might volunteer for #2 (*nudge*). And, #3 shouldn't be terribly > hard to accomplish as long as we keep the pool API the same. If we > want to tweak the pool API, then that's far more involved. > > Thoughts? -- justin Yup, time to move forwards.
