httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: apr_ v.s. ap_
Date Mon, 03 May 1999 21:07:03 GMT

Names exported to the C linker by the APR project should be prefixed:

   [ ] apr_         [X] ap_       [ ] I don't care.

---

I will volunteer to do the edit to change it in the doc and the
sources.

ap_ is good because is reduces the amount we will have to redo
code in Apache and in all the down stream modules.  I think you
have to have a pretty strong argument to force all that code to
change.  I haven't heard a strong argument for this one.

In fact I consider it extremely cruel to expect all that code
to change for a coding convension that is mostly (only?) esthetic
in nature.  When you vote not to change it please ask yourself
to what extent you trading the short term cost of this change
for the long term - and much larger distributed cost - of everybody
else changing their code.

The last time we underwent a significant name change it was hard,
tiresome, abrasive work.  That time there was a technical necessity,
i.e. that Apache was colliding in the linker with third party
packages. (For example make_array.)  This time around I see no
powerful argument.

It might be argued that a change from apr_ to ap_ is backtracking
on choices already made and decided.  While I have some sympathy
for that now that I've started trying to use apr code I finding the
choice made isn't the right one.  As APR comes back into the main
stream of Apache some backtracking seems inevitable.

 - ben


Mime
View raw message