To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: apr_ v.s. ap_
References: <Pine.A41.4.05.9904290703270.24144-100000@webdev7.raleigh.ibm.com>
From: Ben Hyde <bhyde@pobox.com>
Date: 29 Apr 1999 08:52:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: Ryan Bloom's message of "Thu, 29 Apr 1999 07:07:11 -0400 (EDT)"
Message-ID: <871zh3lhc0.fsf@zap.ne.mediaone.net>
Lines: 35
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Ryan Bloom <rbb@raleigh.ibm.com> writes:

> > On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 05:12:06PM -0400, Ben Hyde wrote:
> > > Maybe it is a little late to say anything but I wish that apr_ was
> > > just ap_ in apr ...

> Why are we having this discussion again.  We had it once already when we
> talk about all of the naming conventions.  The general consensus was that
> types end in _t, enumerations end in _e, macros are capitalized, and
> everything begins with apr_ either caps or not depending on what it is.

If no one else feels this is a mistake then I will shut up.  Since I
think is is just foolish self indulgence serves absolutely no useful 
technical purpose and inflicts unnecessary noise into the the process
I couldn't let is pass without comment.

> ... By then, most if not
> all of the work in the 1.3 tree should have stopped, so keeping two
> repositories in sync is a non-issue.

The impression that 1.3.7 will be the last release in in that family
strikes me as wishful thinking.  2.0 is going to take time and inflict
a frightening API change on module authors.  The interests of the
installed base will overwhelm any desire we might have to avoid
ongoing working 1.3.7.  If we don't continue to evolve and maintain
1.3 others will.  Just look at the scale of Ralf's EAPI patch as an
example.

Humm... I must be suffering from low blood sugar, sorry about that.

  - ben

---
Must even the greatest visions of the heart be blurred by discretions?
  -- Kathleen Scott