From: Eli Green Date: 2001-10-02T14:33:08+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:21920] Re: Let's work on Windows support > Bad apache, bad portability, bad modularity... errr... ::grin:: Exactement. > > APR isn't in a state where it's recommended for use as a shared library yet, > > so static linking would be the way to go for the time being. So while we'd be > > adding a dependency to APR, we'd be getting rid of the dependency of Cygwin, > > and it could be bundled as one InstallShield executable. > > Agreed. I've been tracking APR for a good two years now and it's API > has stabilized quite a bit and with Apache 2.0 coming close to its beta > (finally). That said, I'd have to think that the APR is not only very > portable, that it's also pretty stable and well maintained. -sc This just in from http://www.apache.org The 2.0 version of the Apache HTTP Server -- currently nearing a stable release -- has been successfully running the Apache websites for many months. This major release features many architectural improvements which allow for a more powerful and flexible server while retaining the legendary stability of the world's most popular web server. Hmmm. Apache 2.0 is based on APR. Apache 2.0 runs apache.org ... therefore, APR has been successfully dealing with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of calls per day. > PS All the same, I know this isn't a small undertaking, but the > thought of having two versions of ruby (one for UNIX and one for > windows) is pretty repulsive, especially when there is are good native > solutions (*cough* native solutions that have native threading *cough*) > that could be leveraged. Preventing parallel code branches is a Good > Thing(TM). Hear, hear.