httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject RE: cvs commit: apache-2.0 STATUS
Date Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:15:56 GMT
It is also a _lot_ easier to call functions compiled from whatever
language you want when you aren't using C++ magics.  It is reasonable to
require that a language have certain basic functionalities.  That is what
is done now.  If you use all sorts of C++ features in the API, it is
_very_ hard if not impossible to reasonably use object files compiled in
other languages. 

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> >   Following this argument, it's bad to make use of C
> > "features" (pointers, pointers to functions, structures)
> > to implement an API you want to make available "to all
> > languages".  Yet that's just what the current API does,
> > and BASIC users be damned! :-)
> > 
> >   Making use of some of the features of C++ to make
> > development, maintenance and porting Apache easier, in my
> > mind, is reason enough to at least see if Apache++ can
> > perform on the same level as Apache. If it can, then making
> > use of the features of C++ is no different than using the
> > features of of C.
> 
> There is a slight difference here.  There are existing modules written in
> C.  If the Apache API moves to a point where a module must be compiled
> with a C++ compiler, we could be orphaning some useful modules.  I am
> completely in favour of a move towards C++ for the core of Apache.  It
> will solve a lot of problems, especially when it comes to multi-threading
> issues, but it should be possible to present a generic C API to module
> authors.
> 
> -Rasmus
> 


Mime
View raw message