On 6/3/2011 12:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/3/2011 12:05 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 07:51, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. > > None of the merging of apr and apr-util would have even been > considered, until we had factored out all of the library dependencies > into sub-components of apr which *need not be loaded*. Even apr 1.x > core itself had too many dependencies which weren't necessary for > each and every consumer.
** Also, if a library doesn't benefit from abstraction using pool memory mechanics, it isn't likely to be a good candidate either.
