Re: file_handle_cache branch ready for review

Hyrum K Wright wrote:

> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 09.01.2012 14:56, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> Until we can change the minimum required version of APR, it just
>>> isn't worth the hassle.
>> [...]
>> For something like the filehandle cache, which is not a functional
>> requirement, we can then use it if APR has it, or just not use it if it
>> doesn't.
>
> Sure, and that jives with what we've done in the past.  We can also
> eventually bump the minimum APR requirements so that we can guarantee
> the APR implementation exists.

+1 to all this.  I take your point about maintaining two versions; in the past we've mainly (only?) done this with very small additions to APR.  And I overlooked the fact that this (file handle caching) can be an optional feature.

- Julian
Received on 2012-01-09 17:08:30 CET