On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 07:51, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: >... > If people are starting their own portability libraries, then it shows that > apr is not fit for purpose in its current form, and that needs to be > addressed by the apr project. I don't recall much discussion happening over > "combined vs split", suddenly we were combined, and as I recall nobody > provided an explanation as to what problem they were trying to solve by > doing so.
I tried to bring up discussion about concentrating on just OS portability and dropping all the other gunk a couple years ago. See the thread titled "APR: Portable across Operating Systems, or Libraries?" back in January 2009. It kinda devolved into just talking about platforms. The part about combining... I don't know where exactly that came from. I remember some discussion, but I was already thinking the functionality should be dropped (whether merged or not). > It seems what we're working towards is combining apr and apr-util, removing > most of the stuff that was in apr-util, ending up pretty much back with apr, > which leads me to ask why we ever bothered combining the two in the first > place. Dunno. Go do the research in the svn logs. Somebody did the commit. Look for the discussion around then, or ask that committer. I've never supported it, so I just stopped worrying about it since the community seemed supportive of that direction... *shrug* Cheers, -g
