At 12:03 PM 1/11/2005, Mladen Turk wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Silly Question - doesn't this proposal fit better >> in the commons project than Tomcat? > >Perhaps, but the guys that are interested in >both c and Java live inside J-T-C :).
Actually, the converse is true - tomcat-dev is modestly high traffic & high number of subscribers. The interest in this nitch is probably much lower across tomcat-dev subscribers (the ones who want to be here, not the ones who manage to subscribe & post "let me out" 3 days later :-) >And since it will be buildable independent >of any connector code, it could be moved to >commons or even apr. ??? If you don't have apr - it seems a little problematic to build an apr-jni interface. >> The reason I suggest this is that we have .pkg and .rpm >> folks supporting standardized apr 0.9 / 1.x installs. > >Well that's OK, but the apr-java consists of two parts: >native library and .jar file, requires Java SDK installed, etc. Of course. There is glue on both sides. To build an apr xs thunk, one needs perl, to build an apr c++ wrapper, one needs c++ (which apr doesn't require.) Same if there was an apr .NET wrapper. I'm thinking in terms of optional components buildable under the apr tree, when the appropriate choices are made. The point I was making is that it would be a shame to reinvent the object model of APR for several different languages. Any robust APR-wrapper object model should prove exceedingly consistent (to the developer/user) between langauges, although the glue varies wildly. This has all already been accomplished by our devoted modperl developers. Why not fold all such special interests? If this is of little interest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in general, we can always spin of [EMAIL PROTECTED] for object and glue discussions. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
