On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Nick Mathewson wrote: > If I understand correctly, Adrian, you also think that bufferevent-ish > stuff should have API-separation from the event-ish stuff (which I > believe in) and that it should go into a separate library from > libevent_core (which I don't agree with, but I don't feel too strongly > about).
I think its fine if they're in the same project, but I don't think they should be sharing library space or header files. That way you can be 100% sure that stuff doesn't depend on other stuff unexpectedly - you'll get compile / link errors. So you'd have libevent_core, libevent_dns, libevent_http, etc, etc. > The remaining question here is whether (and to what extent) to split > non-libevent-core stuff into a separate source package. I don't feel > strongly here either; there are arguments for keeping it in one source > package and arguments for splitting it. Personally, I think it's one > of those "bikeshed" issues whose accessibility garners it attention > beyond its actual impact. Probably we should revisit it after > Libevent 2.0 is out; there is enough architectural stuff slated for > 2.0 already IMO. I'm happy to wait for post-2.0 to discuss this stuff further. I don't have enough time to discuss it now. :) adrian _______________________________________________ Libevent-users mailing list Libevent-users@monkey.org http://monkeymail.org/mailman/listinfo/libevent-users
