Re: RFC: APR 2.0 modularization
Joe Orton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (US), Michael O'Neill (Ireland), Paul Argiry (US) |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:43:15AM +0200, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 17:01, Joe Orton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Open > > questions on where to draw the line, as to what goes in a separate > > library, and much more I'm sure. > > > Well, it's a good question. I was thinking about something like that: > "everything that can be used in libapr-*-2 should be in libapr-[core]-2". > I mean in **general** we should avoid dependency like app -> libapr-ABC -> > libapr-XYZ -> libapr. Another way to draw the line is to move *everything* > that incurs external dependency to a separate library. Avoiding multiple leves of dependencies within APR makes sense to me, though it will mean the "core" libapr will end up quite a bit bigger than libapr in 1.x. I doubt there are a more than a couple of binaries in our main downstream consumers which use only libapr without libaprutil already today, so it's not a big deal. Regards, Joe