[LLVMdev] To APR Or Not To APR. That is the question.

[Andrew Lenharth]

I reallize I am responding to this thread a bit late, but here goes.

On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 10:34, Reid Spencer wrote:
> Snip snip snip, cut cut cut
> As for other libraries, there is boost (which we've already excised),
> and ACE (which is huge and heavy weight). APR is the rising star in this
> area.

As someone who has had to work on and with software written against ACE
(the TAO codebase in fact) may I strongly suggest that you give no
further time to this idea.  Really, if for no other reason than the time
it takes gdb to load the debug synbols for ACE can be on the order of a
couple minutes.  To say it is heavy weight is an understatement.  It
insists on working on very non-standards compliant C++ compiles (i.e.
ones with little support for templates or stl), thus reimplements many
things in the standard library in a really C-type-unsafe way.

Just my 1/2 cent on ACE.

As for APR, when I had glanced at it briefly, it (of course) seemed
rather more focused on providing the things you need for sane cross
platform networking code.  It wasn't clear to me that this really
translated into providing everything we need nor provided useful
abstractions for what we did.  And do we really want to write a wrapper
to wrap another wrapper?

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040916/fc9c00aa/attachment.sig>