httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject Re: apr_ v.s. ap_
Date Tue, 04 May 1999 11:16:17 GMT
Names exported to the C linker by the APR project should be prefixed:

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

On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 05:07:03PM -0400, Ben Hyde wrote:
> 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.

I would just like to remind everybody that ALL that code has to change
anyway.  There will be NO way that 1.3 modules will work with 2.0.  This
is because 1.3 uses int's as files and sockets, and 2.0 will be using
apr_file_t and apr_socket_t types.  Yes, downstream modules are going to
take a hit, and so will all of the code in the base distribution.  But the
argument for doing it is to get platform independance in Apache.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom		rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.	


Mime
View raw message