httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ras...@lerdorf.on.ca (Rasmus Lerdorf)
Subject Re: vetoing hide.h
Date Tue, 31 Mar 1998 05:42:22 GMT
> 	Uh, yeah, I concur. I feel really bad for this, but I didn't
> speak out against hide because I was just going with the flow. Bad
> form. I don't have a real backing for objecting to hide like Roy does,
> too, which was another reason for me being quit. (Excuses...)
> 	I really dislike the binary compatibility thing and the more
> difficult debugging.
> 
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > > 
> > > I am vetoing hide.h and any form of symbol rewriting within the server
> > > that isn't absolutely necessary for proper operation (as is the signal
> > > symbol rewrite).
> > > 
> > I concur, totally. I guess that's a +1 on the -1.

Not that I am a big proponent of HIDE, but none of these vetoes have
included a realistic solution to the problem that HIDE addresses.  Via PHP
I can link in a whole slew of different client libraries.  Before HIDE I
had a number of symbol conflicts.  palloc was one of them and there was
another one from the IMAP library.  I don't understand this "that isn't
absolutely necessary" sentence.  How will you determine what needs to be
rewritten and what doesn't?  I have only hit 3 so far, but there are
plenty of libraries out there.

If HIDE gets vetoed and it is accompanied by some massive changes to
natively change the names of all the API functions then I am all for it.

-Rasmus


Mime
View raw message