Re: Was there any concrete decision on apreq?
"Victor J. Orlikowski" <[email protected]> Sun, 8 Mar 2015 12:43:36 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.apreq,gmane.comp.apache.incubator.bigtop.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <E95B2BD6-2DFB-4D7B-90C3-42241B24E093__24178.1843863011$1425833089$gmane$org@alumni.duke.edu> |
On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote: >=20 > For ages library functions for httpd have ended up in APR, but this = isn=E2=80=99t ideal - APR is a portability layer, and even though code = is being accepted that =E2=80=9Cworks with APR=E2=80=9D, in reality we = really need a libhttpd library that can provide =E2=80=9Cweb server like = stuff=E2=80=9D in a proper true library form. Will certainly make tools = in the =E2=80=9Csupport=E2=80=9D area of the httpd tree easier to = develop for, as none of the tools have access to httpd proper, and code = must be cut and pasted. >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t like that apreq as a loadable module, but I would love = it as a proper shared library. >=20 > Same with the expressions code. +1 Best, Victor -- Victor J. Orlikowski <> [email protected]