httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@engelschall.com (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Subject Re: Compromise
Date Wed, 08 Apr 1998 05:58:38 GMT

In article <199804080044.UAA14981@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote:

> How does this sound... First of all, we decide whether to do the Great
> Renaming or not... Marc's got a good point.

Of course, if we can decide on meaningful and distinguishing prefixes, I vote
+1 for the "Great Renaming". If anything just gets ap_ as the prefix because
the "Great Renaming" is just to avoid symbol conflicts, then I vote -0 for it
and instead would like to keep the HIDE mechanism.  Because just for removing
the conflict, HIDE is good enough. Then the renaming is mostly useless,
although Roy thinks from the software engineering point of view it us better
then HIDE.

> Secondly, let's rename the current ap_ functions to something
> else, like apx_. Now, all the functions we need to hide be prefixed
> by ap_. During this, we take a look at those functions and "decide"
> if that's OK... If they are obviously NOT API functions, then we
> don't name them ap_, if we're not sure, we name 'em ap_ just in case.
> Sooooo functions with ap_ may or may not be API functions, but those
> with other prefixes definately ain't. This at least somewhat defines
> the API by "throwing out" those functions that need to be renamed
> but are obviously not API, although it doesn't do it completely.

> Is that at least a starting point?
>[...]

IMHO the current rename.cf approach is a little bit better, because

1. In the past we already introduced API_EXPORT, API_EXPORT_NONSTD
   and API_VAR_EXPORT tags in the source to distinguish between
   what belongs to the API and what belongs not to it.

2. The rename.cf was automatically synced with these sources tags
   by my rename.cf.update script and thus reflects our current
   definition of what actually belongs to the API and what not.

I really would prefer that we together find prefixes which make all of us
happy and then globally rename all external symbols. If we cannot get a _group
decision_ then it is better to do what Marc said: Keep the stuff for 1.3 as it
is (including HIDE). Because then we do not gain anything, we just making the
stuff _different_ but not better.
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message