httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Subject Re: vetoing hide.h
Date Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:34:22 GMT
Oh, I should have said that I numbered them by personal preference.

>>    2) replace only those symbols necessary (all 3 of them).  Provide
>>       the equivalent compatibilty defines where they are declared.
>>       A short term solution, but easy.
>
>3 that we know about right now, but there are sure to be more.  If I sat
>down for a couple of days and took a look at all the potential libraries
>out there, I am sure I could find more troublesome symbols.  And adding more
>symbols to this list of yours after the fact defeats the whole purpose.
>My main motivation is to have things like RedHat Linux, for example, ship
>with a mod_so enabled httpd that I can then feed modules to and add them 
>on the fly without the user ever having to recompile his httpd.

That is what makes it a short-term solution.  I understand the motivation
and also why it can't be a configurable option.  But, I still consider
the HIDE solution to be *worse* than the problem you are having.
It's cool, it seems like a good idea at face value, but when I actually
looked at the long-term effect it will have on trying to understand our
(still no more documented than before) API, the result had to be a veto.
We need to find a better way (and I will do so if nobody beats me to it).

....Roy

Mime
View raw message