Greg Stein wrote:
When thinking about 2.0, I'm having a hard time with the idea of pulling apr-util into regular apr. We've got a lot of stuff in apr-util that has nothing to do with "Portability". Basically, I see apr-util doing one of two types of things:* common API to access functionality (dbd, ldap, crypto) * useful functionality built on APR I think it would be great if we could concentrate on just a core APR that offers OS portability, and that we also jettison "edge" platforms (keep posix and windows only). And that we trim out functionality (i.e. apr_tables) that have nothing to do with portability (tho we keep pools as a lifetime mgmt capability for OS objects). Thoughts?
I think both apr and apr-util are still both based on the idea of "portability".
In apr, the focus is on making individual or "small" sets of functions available in a portable way, while the focus of apr-util is to have "large" or "complex" sets of functionality (access a database, access an LDAP server, encrypt a string) available in a portable way.
That said you're right that some parts of it, like tables, fall into the category of "useful stuff" rather than "portable stuff". Perhaps an idea could be to move the "useful stuff" into (a want for a better name) apr-useful, which would be the "useful stuff" library built on top of the portability provided by apr.
Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
