Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 32235 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 19:29:03 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 19:29:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 86679 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2003 19:28:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 86580 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2003 19:28:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 86566 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 19:28:50 -0000 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031007142819.01ba57b8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> X-Sender: admin%rowe-clan.net@pop3.rowe-clan.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:28:46 -0500 To: Brian Pane From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." Subject: Re: apr-util 1.0 - buckets/brigades types? Cc: dev@apr.apache.org In-Reply-To: <3F830C3E.50706@cnet.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031007132301.02737de8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20031007132301.02737de8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2003 19:28:52.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[3DCB1F90:01C38D09] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 01:55 PM 10/7/2003, Brian Pane wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>Dumb Q perhaps; for APR-UTIL 1.0 don't we want to change: >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket apr_bucket; >>typedef struct apr_bucket_brigade apr_bucket_brigade_t; >>etc >> >>to follow our convention: >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket_t apr_bucket_t; >>typedef struct apr_bucket_brigade_t apr_bucket_brigade_t; >>etc... >> > >+1 as long as we maintain (deprecated) typedefs >for the old names for backward compatibility. For 0.9.4 certainly! How do others feel about keeping backwards compat in the APR-UTIL 1.0? Bill