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
