I am posting this note to both new-httpd and apache-modules.
I was more than happy to leave this issue alone, but some things have
happened that make me question the desision made earlier. When we made
the last decision, we said we would re-visit the issue if a compelling
reason came up, I believe this is such an issue.
Early last week, I was talking to a group that will be porting Apache to
another platform. I explained the relationship between Apache and apr,
and the hope that the vast majority of OS specific code will be localized
in apr and kept out of Apache. I showed them some apr functions from
after the change to ap_. Their first question was "So if we see a
function with the prefix "ap_" that's an apr function, and it needs to be
ported?" At this point, I had to explain the decision, and I watch their
faces fall, as they realized they had to work to figure out which
functions belonged to which project. (Yes, most of the functions are
documented in the docs directory, but That doesn't mean all of them all,
and I am willing to bet in the future, the docs won't stay up to date.)
Because the porting issue was never brought up when we had our initial
vote about the prefix, I am asking for a second vote.
I would ask everybody who has an opinion to vote. This issue has
implications which effect all Apache developers. I will tally the votes
and report them on Monday morning. This gives everybody plenty of time
to vote on this issue.
If you voted the last time, please vote again so I don't have to dig
through archives for your vote last time.
I would like to see the prefix for apr functions to be:
[ ] ap_ [ ] apr_ [ ] I don't care.
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.
|