Justin Erenkrantz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 06:29:31PM +0200, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> I would advise to use a tagged version of APR in mod_webapp. Using the
>> lastest
>> one is/was not a good idea.
>>
>> I am using the APR tagged "APACHE_2_0_20" for testing mod_webapp and it
>> compiles
>> Ok at least on 2 of test plateforms I use. (ReliantUnix and Linux).
>
> Keep in mind that we're still changing stuff around and we're not
> keeping backwards compatibility with anything because we haven't
> officially released APR. So, if you use an older tagged version for
> a while, you'll get stuck with a bunch of updates all at once that
> may not make any sense.
>
> Furthermore, this whole inherit thing wasn't the most thought-out
> patch we've committed into APR. I think we have a solution that is
> better and reverts us back to the old API. Bear with us. =)
Choosing APR as the mod_webapp abstraction layer has been a well thought-out
choice. When I started, I knew that APR was far from completion and its API
were not stable, BUT the tradeoff of using that code is _incredible_. In the
module source there isn't a single #ifdef dependant to the OS.
That's why I'm oriented towards the use of CVS as a pure unstable
development tree, having the Java classes copied over to jakarta-tomcat-4.0
when a release is tagged, and distributing an APR tarball with the sources
of the module.
Like in BSD, I want to get a UNSTABLE distribution (CVS, daily snapshots and
so on, without APR), and a STABLE one (rolled tarballs, with APR).
Pier
