Message-ID: <352942AA.FEA61BA1@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:01:30 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Organization: A.L. Digital Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/test/rename apapi.h apapi.h.mk
 rename.cf
References: <199804061311.JAA05194@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <199804061219.IAA04836@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > Are we then saying that all API functions have the ap_ prefix?
> > > Why? AFAIK, I vetoed that. I also recall that before Dean said that
> > > apapi_ was just too long to type, we all were voting on the "correct"
> > > prefixes for all functions...
> >
> > > If we are going to do this, let's do it right, and not half-arsed.
> >
> > > I'll be quiet now.
> >
> > Don't be quiet Jim ;-)
> >
> > But when you look into my rename.cf you see that not all functions get just
> > the ap_ prefix. Instead rename.cf currently is configured to use ap_, apx_ and
> > apm_, i.e. different prefixes for different symbol spaces.  The apapi.h file
> > just holds the _REAL_ (=public) API functions.  All cross-object files still
> > get a different prefix. But these are not listed in the apapi.h file. For the
> > complete mapping please read rename.cf.
> >
> > Or did you mean a different point, Jim?
> >
> 
> As far as I know, the use of ap_ for API functions was the "alternate"
> method, and I had vetoed that on the grounds that it clashes with
> the use of ap_ for "generic, non-API" functions (like ap_snprintf).
> Unless we say that the present ap_ functions (those in libap.a) are
> now part of the API, I think it's confusing to use the same prefix
> for both "classes" of functions. If so, then I would rescind my
> veto, but not until that's all agreed.

This whole thing is making me tired (and I'm sure I'm not alone in
that), but I must agree with this - that's why apapi_ was suggested.
Mixing generic functions with API functions seems like a retrograde step
to me.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|  Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author    http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache