httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: vetoing hide.h
Date Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:09:52 GMT
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> At 10:47 PM 3/31/98 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >For me, the ideal solution is to a) decide on a nomenclature,
> >and then b) modify the symbols and their references into accordance.
> >If that means changing all the "palloc" calls to "mumble_palloc", then
> >that's what it takes.  I consider this the probable Right Thing.
> >
> >But that isn't going to happen before 2.0.
> 
> What's not, deciding on a nomenclature or changing all the calls?  Changing

Because of all the hassles it creates with making the API completely
incompatible without actually gaining anything of significance because we
still wouldn't have a defined API unless we used multiple prefixes.

Using a single prefix for everything does _nothing_ to define an API
because it would include all non-static functions.  

We have seen how much bickering errupted over the naming issue.  We don't
need that for 1.3.  We are trying to finish up 1.3, not completely change
the names of every function around.

Having properly seperated namespaces is good.  It should be done.  Adding
a single prefix doesn't do this, adding multiple prefixes sortof does it
but isn't very complete because of the ill-defined API so you can't say
what should have what prefix without more endless bickering.

This is not productive, especially since I have not seen any significant
points about what is so bad about hide.h right now. 


Mime
View raw message