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: cvs commit: apr STATUS
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:35:04 GMT
At 02:20 PM 7/11/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>Just to clarify the technical reason for vetoing the use of apr_time_t
>with a new implementation. The reason I veto this is because I don't
>want us to maintain binary compatibility while we're not maintaining
>semantic compatibility. There are programs out there that use APR's
>apr_time_t and will treat them as decimals.

In this case, semantic compatibility has NO IMPACT on binary
compatibility.  The code will remain binary compatible, even though
this change breaks the behavior.

APR changes... we are pre-1.0 and our developer/consumers know it.

The only SEMANTIC argument for a different name is Roy's observation
that time_t v.s. apr_time_t confuses users into trying to directly set
seconds instead of apr_time_t units.  That's an argument I haven't
bought into, but it is a legitimate argument.

Bill


Mime
View raw message