httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3 STATUS
Date Tue, 07 Apr 1998 22:54:43 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> Much as I sympathise with the view that global ap_ is a mistake, if I've
> understood clearly, there's a simple reason why it does make sense,
> which is that HIDE breaks tools, and a general prefix explicitly used in
> the code doesn't.


> What I object to is reusing something (ap_) that already has semantics
> in a way that destroys those semantics. So, if we really must go for a
> simple namespace solution let it at least not _subtract_ from what
> little classification we already have.

Same here... In fact, even if it takes a little bit more effort,
lets be consistant and take a step forward instead of a step back.
So, I agree again.

> In an ideal world, I can see that we'd like to sort out the whole prefix
> question, assigning "correct" prefixes to each function. Sorting out the
> namespace issue can be seen as independent. If we can all agree that, I
> think it clarifies the situation:
> 1. We need to do something about overloaded function names.
> 2. Using a header to redefine them is attractive, but breaks things.
> 3. Therefore they need to be renamed in place.
> Now, if anyone disagrees with my reasoning up to this point, please
> explain where I went wrong.

Right as rain :)

> 4. Predicting _what_ may need renaming is difficult, so
> 5. We should rename all exported functions.

Yep... Now we have an "idea" which of those functions are
API and which aren't at this point as well.

> Now, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the renaming scheme
> should not bugger up existing naming conventions (which, IMO, rules out
> ap_ as a prefix for this purpose), unless, as a completely separate
> issue, we agree that those naming conventions are worthless.
> Also, the issue of whether we should use this opportunity to name things
> more sensibly is, it seems to me, an independent issue.
> Hmmm ... looks like I've argued myself out of the stance I'd've liked to
> have taken. Oh well. Seems to me we are left with two things:

Unfortunately, I also would prefer the quick and dirty routine... It
just doesn't make sense... So far, we're arm-in-arm :)

> Or have I lost it completely? Or should I just shut my big mouth?

Well, since I agree with you I don't think you lost it at all... :)

   Jim Jagielski   |||   |||
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

View raw message