httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Hyde <>
Subject Re: apr_ v.s. ap_
Date Tue, 04 May 1999 15:25:15 GMT
Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com> writes:

> Ben Hyde wrote:
> > 
> > In what senario would APR introduce a name that collides with the
> > names used by its principle customer and sponser?  That would be
> > bizzare.
> Mm.  And how about someone who wrote a module for Apache,
> found functionality it liked, and assumed they were part of APR
> and portable outside of Apache?  ap_find_token(), say, or
> perhaps ap_escape_html(), or possibly ap_os_canonical_filename()?
> Those would seem to perform httpd-neutral functions (from the
> names, at least), but they're (currently) part of Apache, not
> APR.

Again this is a hypothetical future inconvenience cost compaired with a
assured immediate high cost.

> You seem to be concerned about people having to do a
> s/ap_/apr_/g substitution and finding it painful; 

Surely you don't mean to imply that is the magnitude of
this edit!

> I'm
> concerned about people being able to tell from looking at
> a function name whether it's Apache-only or usable elsewhere
> from the APR libraries.

Denotational clarity is a good thing.  I've no problem with
buying it whenever change is forced by unavoidable reasons.

>   Since most of the things going into
> the I/O layering portion of APR have different semantics
> than their 1.3 counterparts, all module ap_* function calls
> will need to be reviewed by module authors anyway.

This is really the root of the argument.

Are we going to make any attempt to to screw the module authors.

> *shrug*

Disinterest in the suffering of others is enivitable if there
is nothing one can do about it.

In a sense I'm pressing this issue because I think there is a
questionable disinterest developing for the migration of the 
installed base.

Clearly Apache 2.0 will be more fun, if we don't worry about

 - ben

View raw message