Re: Home for apr-based wrappers?

[Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:20:19AM +1100, Ian Holsman wrote:
> This is all fine and dandy, and has been brought up multiple times before.
> 
> The basic reason is no one has the time/itch to do something like this, 
> and it is usually brought up when someone wants to add something to the 
> core as a way of killing of that. (please don't take that as a flame 
> directly against you Bill)
> 
> but to your vote.
> 
> I go for:
> 
>   [x]  Strong integration, strong advertising, al la PHP-like everything
>        plus the kitchen sink

So far as I understand how all this discussion is relevant to the 
decision at hand ("what goes in apr-util") I agree with Ian.

I think that apr-util should continue to be an "everything plus the 
kitchen sink" repository for APR-based code which:

a) the committers of this project think is generally useful, and
b) meets the expected standards of code quality, and
c) is relatively small in magnitude (i.e. I'd be worried about
dumping in tens of thousands of lines of new code)

joe

Re: Home for apr-based wrappers?

["Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>]

On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:49 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> a) the committers of this project think is generally useful, and
> b) meets the expected standards of code quality, and
> c) is relatively small in magnitude (i.e. I'd be worried about
> dumping in tens of thousands of lines of new code)

+1

-Fitz

Re: Home for apr-based wrappers?

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

Joe Orton wrote:
> So far as I understand how all this discussion is relevant to the 
> decision at hand ("what goes in apr-util") I agree with Ian.
> 
> I think that apr-util should continue to be an "everything plus the 
> kitchen sink" repository for APR-based code which:
> 
> a) the committers of this project think is generally useful, and
> b) meets the expected standards of code quality, and
> c) is relatively small in magnitude (i.e. I'd be worried about
> dumping in tens of thousands of lines of new code)

+1.

Sander

Re: Home for apr-based wrappers?

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Joe Orton wrote:
....
> So far as I understand how all this discussion is relevant to the 
> decision at hand ("what goes in apr-util") I agree with Ian.
> 
> I think that apr-util should continue to be an "everything plus the 
> kitchen sink" repository for APR-based code which:
> 
> a) the committers of this project think is generally useful, and
> b) meets the expected standards of code quality, and
> c) is relatively small in magnitude (i.e. I'd be worried about
> dumping in tens of thousands of lines of new code)

+1, those are exactly my feelings.

-Paul

Re: Home for apr-based wrappers?

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:49:27AM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
>...
> I think that apr-util should continue to be an "everything plus the 
> kitchen sink" repository for APR-based code which:

+1

> a) the committers of this project think is generally useful, and
> b) meets the expected standards of code quality, and
> c) is relatively small in magnitude (i.e. I'd be worried about
> dumping in tens of thousands of lines of new code)

Yup. (c) is why apr-iconv was busted out to a separate project. But
IMO, throwing more into apr-util is just fine for now.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/