apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: apr_mmap_t
Date Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:39:59 GMT
At 05:54 PM 11/20/2002, rbb@apache.org wrote:

>BTW, I want to be 100% clear.  We don't use incomplete types for binary
>compatibility.  The only reason that we use incomplete types is for
>portability reasons.  In APR 2.0, I fully expect most of the incomplete
>types to shrink, and for a good portion of APR to use complete types.

Huh?

Incomplete types have absolutely zero impact on portability, other than
preventing authors from doing stupid things.  We've never been against
users making stupid errors, so that can't be it :-)

They are 100% about maintainability.  Cliff's particular change is the
perfect case-in-point.

By 2.0, I hope to have helped flesh out a reasonably portable way
of introducing inline accessors, so the entire performance issue
flies out the window.  Of course, when one enables the inlines, one
binds oneself to an exact version of APR (al la HTTP's own internal
build of APR).  If one does not use inlines, then you have complete
freedom to use different APR versions as a dynamic library.

Incomplete types were the correct initial design decision, and they
will continue to be a good decision.

Bill


Mime
View raw message