httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: Renaming: READY?
Date Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:34:31 GMT
At 07:34 AM 4/10/98 -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>I think the current situation is that yes, everyone has agreed to prefix
>[almost] everything with "ap_" for 1.3.  The "[almost]" refers to those
>items which are already prefixed "ap_" and *aren't* part of the API -
>namely, only the following:

Uh, no, this is what's in the current STATUS file:

        - Apache provided general functions (e.g., ap_cpystrn)
            ap_xxx:    +1: Ken, Brian, Ralf, Paul, Randy

with no other options.  Ken, your name is there.  I consider it case closed.

>Ben mentioned that he didn't like diluting the original naming
>semantics of these by adding a slew of other things to their
>'name-class,' which labels them as reusable and not httpd-specific.
>Jim suggested that these few be given a new prefix to move them
>out of the way of a general ap_* prefix renaming.  (Simpler than
>warping the majority for the specific - move the specific to a
>reservation. ;-)  (I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone's
>[past?] positions here.)

No, you're just representing one side of the argument.  The other side is
that Roy felt that prefixes should only be used to avoid namespace clashes,
and Dean was concerned (among other things) that we may feel we want to
change a particular function's class at some point, and having that mandate
a rename of that function would be, uh, counterproductive.  I agree with
both these points.  

Do we need a Cliff's Notes to the last few days of discussion?  Cliff,
could you provide one for us?  :)

>It would be nice to maintain the name distinction, but far
>from critical to my mind.

Why would we be concerned with anything less than critical at this point?


"Optimism is a strategy for making               
a better future." - Noam Chomsky              

View raw message