Re: Why svn 2.0 may come sooner than we expected

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 06:30:55PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> If I understand the outcome of
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=108860637218865&w=2 right, apr
> 1.0 may not ship with an apr-config (it would ship with an apr-1-config
> instead), in which case we wouldn't be supporting apr 1.0 without a
> local hack. And I think that's well and proper; it would make life
> harder on third-party application developers to have two sets of
> incompatible Subversion ABIs running around.

Why? Most of them either are source based or build our libraries into
their application statically anyway. I still fail to see how it's
making life harder for them. They don't have to do anything spectacular
to support APR 1.0. Even if it ends up being apr-1-config we already
have --with-apr= where you can specify the full path. Fine so we don't
support APR 1.0 by default. Make people do:
--with-apr=apr-1-config

If we were that worried about something like this we should:
a) Not have used APR types directly in any of our APIs.

b) Hidden any required use of APR from applications.

But that would mean wrapping gobs of APR functionality that I don't
think we want to do.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org