apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Some named pipe hacking...
Date Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:27:15 GMT

> > NT already _has_ NT namedpipes (and so does OS/2).  so,
> > you are proposing to 'shackle' the NT named pipes to 'local only',
> > because some unix developers can't be ... well ... uhh...
> > okay, i'll be polite, but it's the same thing, 'might be confused'
> > by something that isn't a unix API.
> No, that is complete bullshit and I want all of the Windows developers to
> know that this type of argumentation is juvenile and isn't appreciated.
> The purpose of APR is to provide a portable runtime.  If a function only
> exists on Windows or OS/2, then use the native library for those functions.
> If there is a specific behavior that you want to replicate on all machines,
> then define the feature set -- I don't give a rat's ass if it already exists
> in Win32, if you can't define what the features are then we can't bloody
> well make it multiplatform (on the platform that has already implemented
> the feature set, we will use the native calls).  If the Windows name
> happens to match an existing Unix name, the Unix name wins because that
> is the most likely platform for developers and client implementations of APR.
> So choose another name for the feature set if the features don't match
> those under Unix.

While I agree with 99% of what Roy said, I would like to make one
clarification from my point of view.  I don't really care if it conflicts
with a name on Unix.  I do however care if the name conflicts with
something in POSIX or something in common use on multiple platforms.  If
we implement something that conflicts with a name on Windows, and our
implementation doesn't look incredibly similar to that entity on Windows,
then I consider that a problem.


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

View raw message