Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:50:08 +0200
From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
To: David Reid <david@jetnet.co.uk>, APR Dev List <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] issues for 1.0
Message-ID: <39248842D970FCABB9C9D048@uio-8021x-153-0-25-58.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <02a401c4522a$cbbfb860$7500a8c0@goliath>
References: <02a401c4522a$cbbfb860$7500a8c0@goliath>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--On Monday, June 14, 2004 5:15 PM +0100 David Reid <david@jetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> - we need to decide if Ryan's proposed fix to the mutex_child_init should
> stay or we stick with existing api. I've not been involved in it heavily,
> BUT can we have some votes as otherwise I'll stick with what we have.

My preference is to wait on this.  I think making such a drastic change 
*right* before we go to 1.0 is asking for trouble.

> - namespace protection in headers. Where do we stand on this? apr.hnw is
> listed in STATUS?

Realistically, I consider this a *yawn*.  We could fix this up later, I think.

> - thread return types. I see 2 +1's already for changing the type to an
> apr_status_t. Anyone else care to comment/vote?

I thought it wasn't portable to return a thread exit value on all OSes.  But, 
sure, I guess it sounds reasonable.  +1.

> - version to apr_initialise. I see enough 3 +1's, but a -1 and a -0, so
> comments?

I think it's a good idea, but Greg with his -1 (veto) needs to chime in.

> - apr_md5 functions. Should they change to void? Move to apr-util?

MD5 already moved to apr-util.  But, the return type is still apr_status_t. 
Yet, I don't see a particularly compelling reason to change this to void.

*shrug*  -- justin