httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug MacEachern <do...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: ap_ vs apr_
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:04:35 GMT
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 07:10:18AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 
> > > But, I think it's a bad thing to have all these functions changing
> > > names every few months on a whim.
> > 
> > This wasn't a whim.  Doug tried to do something that the old design
> > wouldn't allow.  The solution was either try to hack around it or fix the
> > underlying problem.
> 
> At the end, though, I thought I sensed him conceding that the what he
> wanted to do was kind of weird, but maybe not.

well, i might be doing something weird, but i am piggy-backing on the old
discussion of ap_ vs. apr_.  my issue is just one more in favor of
apr_
 
> That's why I didn't veto :) But I'm worried that someone who was
> against apr_* before will show up in a couple of days and veto it.

it'll be 1 week tommorrow since i re-raised the issue and there were a
handful of +1's on that same day.  i think that's plenty of time, since
there are not vetos i'm going ahead with the change tonight.  it can
always be backed out if needed.


Mime
View raw message