httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dean gaudet <>
Subject Re: ap_ vs apr_
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:36:44 GMT
this would mean that any module attempting to be used with both 1.3 and
2.0, and which uses (only) functions present in both 1.3 and 2.0 would
need to have "#define ap_foo apr_foo", or "#define apr_foo ap_foo" right?

that seems like a more likely occurance than someone trying to write a
module using APR to link with both 1.3 and 2.0.


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.

View raw message