httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: ap_ vs apr_
Date Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:36:31 GMT
> From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 1:07 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: ap_ vs apr_
> 
> Well, I've voted on this before, but +1 to change the APR 
> prefix to apr_

And for the reasons Doug cites... I'm +1 as well.  Binary
compatibility could become a little more mute if the apr
functions didn't change as often as apache (yeah... sure :)


> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> 
> > i know this debate happened long ago, and it's probably too 
> late to pipe
> > up.  but, i'm working on a package that uses libapr 
> standalone (outside of
> > httpd), as a 2.0 module and as a 1.3 module.  1.3 is rather 
> painful, since
> > the pool structures are different between 1.3 and 2.0, but 
> many function
> > names are the same in libapr and httpd (e.g. ap_pstrcat).  
> to work around
> > this problem i have to generate an apr_prefix.h file to 
> redefine ap_* to
> > apr_* and #include that in apr.h.  once everything is 
> renamed with an apr_
> > prefix things are golden, standalone, inside 2.0 and inside 1.3.
> > i can see libapr being used for lots of things outside of 
> the server, i
> > just wish i could use it inside 1.3 without having hacking it.
> > if anybody wants to reconsider, i'm +1 on using the apr_ 
> prefix for all
> > libapr functions.
> > 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________________
> Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> 

Mime
View raw message