Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 21732 invoked by uid 6000); 8 Apr 1998 21:08:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 21697 invoked from network); 8 Apr 1998 21:08:28 -0000 Received: from devsys.jagunet.com (206.156.208.6) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 8 Apr 1998 21:08:28 -0000 Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.8.8/jag-2.4) id RAA21274 for new-httpd@apache.org; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:08:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <199804082108.RAA21274@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: apapi_compat.h and apapi.h files To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:08:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Ummm.... I'm a little shell shocked to even bring this up, but.... should we really name the 2 header files apapi.h and apapi_compat.h ? It kinda implies that the functions included _are_ the API (the comments in the files also do that as well), which is not necessarily the case (otherwise the arguments that we don't know what the API is are specious)... Also, there are a few API functions which aren't in there (eg: ap_snprintf()) either. Comments? -- =========================================================================== 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"