Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <06e001c1452d$e5796e70$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
To: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Fw: [PATCH] shmem.c - 3rd try
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:16:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
To: <rbb@covalent.net>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shmem.c - 3rd try


> From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:54 PM
> 
> 
> > On Monday 24 September 2001 11:27 am, 'Justin Erenkrantz' wrote:
> > > If at some later point we decide that we should split it we can.
> > > You typically want to split the files when something else may use
> > > these functions (i.e. they are exported) - that isn't the case here.
> > > For now, the helper functions should be declared as static (which
> > > means they need to be in the same compilation unit) - otherwise we
> > > get into namespace issues (i.e. must be prefixed by apr_).  -- justin
> > 
> > I want those functions exported, because they can be used by any platform
> > to create the shared memory list.  This makes porting to Windows much easier
> > than it will be if I have to re-write all of the list functions.
> 
> There is a difference (on Win32, at least) between 'exported'.
> That is, without APR_DECLARE_FOO, the function name isn't exported from
> the shared library.
> 
> In any case, if these are flexible helpers, why not follow the model we
> used for network_io shared code?  That seemed to work fairly well.
>