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 11:17:43 GMT

Sorry, I should pay more attention before I send the message.  The vote
should have looked like

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

:)

Ryan

On Tue, 4 May 1999, Ryan Bloom wrote:

> 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.	
> 
> 

_______________________________________________________________________
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