Re: svn needs to use new apr polling interface

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 22:12, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > Yes, I saw your mail, and agree that it "should" not have been
> > removed. However, in the long run it's on its way out
>
> It is? What makes you say that? It's significantly easier to use than
> apr_poll() in simple use cases, and I don't see any consensus to remove
> it on dev@apr.

You're right -- I went and looked at the discussion (the thread
started by you on dev@apr), and things are not as I thought.

Here's what happened:

I assumed that the apr_poll() interface couldn't have been removed
unless there was clear consensus that it should go. Therefore, when
you posted pointing out that it hadn't been deprecated before it was
removed, I thought you were merely making a complaint about scheduling
-- i.e., that there's a procedure for dropping APIs, and that APR had
failed to follow the procedure in this case.

I didn't realize that there was actually a question about whether the
API should be dropped at all.

I'm watching the thread on dev@apr now, and in the meantime, I'll stop
working on that patch (didn't spend much time on it yet, luckily).

Thanks for the legwork!

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 21 05:15:11 2003