On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:24:28PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > +1 from me, I prefer APR actually. > > I am really uncomfortable with this going under the APR project. As > things stand right now, it just doesn't fit with what we have stated our > goals to be. > > If you want to change our stated goals, then go ahead and do it. Just > committing code that doesn't fit with our goals isn't the way to do that.
(I will defer answering this for an apr-only discussion.) > I will make one exception to that statement. If it lands inside of > APR-util, under the XML directory, and it is made to work with the XML > parser, I can accept that landing spot. As it fits in closer with our > goals (I think). Jim, I can't decide if this is what you meant or not. I'm +1 on integrating it into our XML stuff. I consider it to be equivalent to apr-util, so either we put it inside apr-util, or we create a new APR subproject or sub-library for it. -aaron
