Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 73705 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2001 05:10:10 -0000 Received: from 3ff8faf3.dsl.flashcom.net (HELO koj.covalent.net) (63.248.250.243) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 05:10:10 -0000 Received: from rbb (helo=localhost) by koj.covalent.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14RSNG-0003QL-00 for dev@apr.apache.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:15:06 -0800 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:15:06 -0800 (PST) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: sdbm vs dbm???? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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? Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------