You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by david reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk> on 2006/07/28 19:22:01 UTC
apreq -> apr-util
While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at
what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the
project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so
having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may
be a win for them as well.
I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we
should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The
overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be
also minimal.
--
david
http://feathercast.org/
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by Jeffrey Horner <je...@vanderbilt.edu>.
david reid wrote:
> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
>
> I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at
> what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the
> project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so
> having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may
> be a win for them as well.
>
> I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we
> should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The
> overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be
> also minimal.
As a casual list reader who uses/distributes libapreq with his own project:
http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/RApacheProject
I welcome any collaboration that could further the idea of distributing
libapreq with apache httpd (just as apr and apr-util are distributed
with httpd) or even melding libapreq into apr-util.
--
Jeffrey Horner Computer Systems Analyst School of Medicine
615-322-8606 Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by david reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:22:01PM +0100, david reid wrote:
>> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
>> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
>> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
>> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
>>
>> I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at
>> what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the
>> project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so
>> having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may
>> be a win for them as well.
>>
>> I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we
>> should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The
>> overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be
>> also minimal.
>
> Well, it's only when you propose something specific that it can really
> be considered! The 3-point rule for "what stuff should go in apr-util"
> that everyone seemed happy with was that it should be small, good, and
> useful. Adding *all* of apreq's library/*.c would certainly fail the
> size test, I'd say.
Erm, well if people are happy enough with the basic concept then I'll
start suggesting patches, but I wanted to give people the opportunity to
look at what was there and decide if it was a good fit for apr-util
before I started proposing. If I'd dropped a whole load of patches
without any form of comment that would have been frowned upon as well
wouldn't it? I am well aware of the size requirements...
I was trying to be "diplomatic", but maybe I shouldn't have been?
--
david
http://feathercast.org/
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:22:01PM +0100, david reid wrote:
> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
>
> I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at
> what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the
> project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so
> having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may
> be a win for them as well.
>
> I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we
> should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The
> overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be
> also minimal.
Well, it's only when you propose something specific that it can really
be considered! The 3-point rule for "what stuff should go in apr-util"
that everyone seemed happy with was that it should be small, good, and
useful. Adding *all* of apreq's library/*.c would certainly fail the
size test, I'd say.
joe
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
david reid wrote:
> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
Well, the proposal is a little too fuzzy to add meaningful thoughts right
now, but I've always been a fan of bringing apreq into httpd 2.x. And you
are absolutely right, some of the features in apreq are really more generic
than httpd, and I'd agree some of them would be a good fit in apr-util.
But the next question is - which API's do you propose are generic enough
for apr-util?
Bill
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
david reid wrote:
> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
Well, the proposal is a little too fuzzy to add meaningful thoughts right
now, but I've always been a fan of bringing apreq into httpd 2.x. And you
are absolutely right, some of the features in apreq are really more generic
than httpd, and I'd agree some of them would be a good fit in apr-util.
But the next question is - which API's do you propose are generic enough
for apr-util?
Bill
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Eli Marmor wrote:
> IIRC, everybody loved the idea, and some of the people were even
> excited.
I might have pitched in, but I had surgery and moved from MD->CA when this discussion happened last.
Right now, I'd like to see 2.08 out the door before we plan anything else.
It fixes 2.2.2 issues on Win32 and perl5.8.8+ on Unix.
Also,
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/branches/apr-build-system/
was started by joes.
Finally, I'd like to see our website section beefed up, I was working on this too until my abrupt distruption above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) 323.219.4708
Consultant / http://p6m7g8.net/Resume/resume.shtml
Senior Software Engineer - TicketMaster - http://ticketmaster.com
1024D/A79997FA F357 0FDD 2301 6296 690F 6A47 D55A 7172 A799 97F
"It takes a minute to have a crush on someone, an hour to like someone,
and a day to love someone, but it takes a lifetime to forget someone..."
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> Bill: as an insider, what do you suggest? to start with apr-util, and
> only then integrating the other parts in httpd and mod_perl, or to try
> to do all of these projects together?
Personal opinion? Only sane way to approach this is to take every element
that's a good, broad fit into apr-util and plug it in there (usual votes to
accept etc.)
Then take the slightly less generic, more httpd-ish and propose those into
httpd core.
That should solve the 80/20, then propose the perl glue into modperl and
voila - useful fn's for everyone, close integration, and specific modperl
connectivity where it belongs.
Bill
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Eli Marmor wrote:
> IIRC, everybody loved the idea, and some of the people were even
> excited.
I might have pitched in, but I had surgery and moved from MD->CA when this discussion happened last.
Right now, I'd like to see 2.08 out the door before we plan anything else.
It fixes 2.2.2 issues on Win32 and perl5.8.8+ on Unix.
Also,
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/branches/apr-build-system/
was started by joes.
Finally, I'd like to see our website section beefed up, I was working on this too until my abrupt distruption above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) 323.219.4708
Consultant / http://p6m7g8.net/Resume/resume.shtml
Senior Software Engineer - TicketMaster - http://ticketmaster.com
1024D/A79997FA F357 0FDD 2301 6296 690F 6A47 D55A 7172 A799 97F
"It takes a minute to have a crush on someone, an hour to like someone,
and a day to love someone, but it takes a lifetime to forget someone..."
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> Bill: as an insider, what do you suggest? to start with apr-util, and
> only then integrating the other parts in httpd and mod_perl, or to try
> to do all of these projects together?
Personal opinion? Only sane way to approach this is to take every element
that's a good, broad fit into apr-util and plug it in there (usual votes to
accept etc.)
Then take the slightly less generic, more httpd-ish and propose those into
httpd core.
That should solve the 80/20, then propose the perl glue into modperl and
voila - useful fn's for everyone, close integration, and specific modperl
connectivity where it belongs.
Bill
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it>.
[this message will not reach dev@apr because I'm not a subscriber...]
Actually, this issue was raised several times (2 of them by me), not
only integrating parts of apreq in apr-util, but also integrating the
other parts in httpd and mod_perl.
IIRC, everybody loved the idea, and some of the people were even
excited.
It's a very strange mystery for me how nothing was done, despite the
excitement.
I'll love to see it done.
Bill: as an insider, what do you suggest? to start with apr-util, and
only then integrating the other parts in httpd and mod_perl, or to try
to do all of these projects together?
--
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by Jeffrey Horner <je...@vanderbilt.edu>.
david reid wrote:
> While doing some work on mod_sparql I found that some of the
> functionality i had assumed we already had in apr-util was actually
> available in apreq. Further examination revealed various parts of the
> library code that I feel really belong in apr-util.
>
> I talked briefly with joes and he seemed to be OK with us looking at
> what parts would be a good fit for apr-util. He indicated that the
> project was looking to try and alter their code in various ways and so
> having more of their generic lib code available directly in apr-util may
> be a win for them as well.
>
> I'm not giving specifics yet as I'd like to know if people think we
> should do it, and then what pieces we should look at moving. The
> overhead of moving will be minimal and the changes required look to be
> also minimal.
As a casual list reader who uses/distributes libapreq with his own project:
http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/RApacheProject
I welcome any collaboration that could further the idea of distributing
libapreq with apache httpd (just as apr and apr-util are distributed
with httpd) or even melding libapreq into apr-util.
--
Jeffrey Horner Computer Systems Analyst School of Medicine
615-322-8606 Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University
Re: apreq -> apr-util
Posted by Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it>.
[this message will not reach dev@apr because I'm not a subscriber...]
Actually, this issue was raised several times (2 of them by me), not
only integrating parts of apreq in apr-util, but also integrating the
other parts in httpd and mod_perl.
IIRC, everybody loved the idea, and some of the people were even
excited.
It's a very strange mystery for me how nothing was done, despite the
excitement.
I'll love to see it done.
Bill: as an insider, what do you suggest? to start with apr-util, and
only then integrating the other parts in httpd and mod_perl, or to try
to do all of these projects together?
--
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel