Re: Discuss: Apache Portable Runtime and/or IBM ICU4C?

[Curt Arnold]

The APR migration has been in progress for a couple of weeks and I'm 
more and more convinced that it was the right approach.   For 
deployment, I'm expecting that we will build log4cxx using APR in a 
static library, so there won't be a runtime dependency on apr.dll et 
al.  Won't know how it will impact the library size, but I don't expect 
it will have a huge impact.

Instead of tweaking config_msvc.h, try tweaking build.xml.  In a 
perfect world when the APR port is complete, config.h and similar files 
will be eliminated.  I believe that you can just remove appenders from 
the compilation task and log4cxx will still build.

For example, you could modify build.xml, so if you did
ant -Duse-winsock=false
would build log4cxx without appenders that depend on winsock and would 
skip the tests of the corresponding appenders.

On Nov 17, 2004, at 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I was playing around with the cvs HEAD and saw the hints of APR 
dependencies,
so decided to join the mailing list and join the discussion.

I personally would vote against using APR.  Or better stated I would 
prefer to
keep the logging library as dependency-free as possible.  Ideally the 
use of
APR could be conditionally compiled in, but I'd like to see a 
flexible, small,
fast, and stable logging library.

To that note I've started poking around to allow finer granularity on 
the msvc
side of builds -- allowing to opt out of winsock dependent 
functionality by
using a HAVE_NET in config_msvc.  Again my primary goal is to keep the 
library
size small for my application where distribution size is critical.

Mark