apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: apr-util comments
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:38:45 GMT
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:29 PM
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:24AM -0800, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >...
> > 1) I assume that the ap_* prefix on files/etc hasn't been changed to apr_* yet
> > simply to ease the transition to httpd-2.0, and that the namespace change will come
> > in a later pass.  Right?
> Yup. I'm not sure what the strategy for this will be, though, since changing
> a bunch of #includes throughout Apache will be a fair amount of work.

But for long term clarity, apr_ is definately clearer.  I wouldn't worry
about the short-term pain.  I'm a very strong +1 on that issue.
> We also have some other tweaky things such as the HOOK macros. You may have
> noticed that Ryan had to undo the APR rename. I haven't looked into it, but
> I bet it was because we don't have all the right APR_DECLARE macro magic
> available. Could have also been that he didn't want to change all of the
> users of the macros :-)

Aren't we including "apr.h" from the apr header, and building apr prior to
apr-util?  I'd suggest this is manditory.  apr-util should let apr do the 90%
of the work required.

There is a much bigger problem ... the simple wrappers that add the linkage
specs _must_ move back into apache, I'll do that in a bit.

Bigger issues;

Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within apr-util?
Can't we keep to the same simplicity as apr itself?  Suggesting, therefore,
that we aught to have apr-util/buckets rather than apr-util/src/buckets.
The extra branch doesn't accomplish anything for us, and makes it harder
to jump between repositories.


View raw message