apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: sdbm vs dbm????
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:56:29 GMT
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 09:15:06PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 
> > In the APR-util include directory, we have two dbm headers, apr_sdbm.h and
> > apr_dbm.h.  The sdbm file is namespace protected with sdbm, instead of
> > apr, and in my investigations, it looks like the apr_sdbm header is used
> > by the apr_dbm.h header.  Are we really exporting sdbm?  If not, why is
> > the sdbm header in the public include directory?
> I forget whether it was OtherBill or myself, but one of us pushed for
> exporting sdbm explicitly [so it is present in the public dir]. Personally,
> I'm quite cool with it being namespace protected, if that's what you're
> after.
> apr_dbm is working well enough, that I think it would also be reasonable to
> keep sdbm private. (but still namespace protected because the symbol names
> "leak" from the library)
> Were you after a particular result?

I got an e-mail from somebody who was very confused about which one to
use in his code.  I would much prefer to just keep sdbm private.  That is
why we have apr_dbm.h.


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message