httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Renaming: READY?
Date Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:22:13 GMT
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> Why would we be concerned with anything less than critical at this point?
> 

I guess that's the point... The collisions _are_ critical, and the
"use-prefixes-for-classification" is an added feature that could be
used. We had originally debated on what prefixes to use for API
functions, and private functions and other functions... At the
time, it looked like the most popular choices where apapi_ for
API functions, ap_ for "regular" functions and appri_ or apx_
for private, non-static functions. After working on the ap_snprintf()
stuff, Dean suggested that we just use ap_ for everything, and
just worry about collisions and nothing else. Some people agreed.
Some people disagreed. Flames flew and there was much discussion :)
The only thing I'm trying to say is when the renaming itself
was voted on, it was kinda "implied" that different prefixes
would be used, we just didn't know what they were, hence the votes
on all the choices.

But when all is said and done, name-space collisions ARE the
critical point. If there is resistance to going "the extra mile"
and maintaining the little classification that we already
have, well, I can respect that... I want 1.3b6 (and 1.3.0) out
as quick as the next guy, and we've already pushed it way back
already :/  At the very least, it provides some clue to the
potential Apache and Apache-module coder that functions prefixed
ap_ are protected, and thus could be, but are not guaranteed, to be
API functions... It's a start.

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

Mime
View raw message