httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug MacEachern <>
Subject Re: ap_ vs apr_
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2000 04:14:38 GMT
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 12:40:55AM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > true.  but regardless of the binary compat issue, i can see lots of use
> > for libapr outside of httpd, i like to see the separation of namespace.
> > i don't know what other reasons came out of the older discussion.
> The basic reason that I remember for sticking with ap_ what that it
> reduced confusion; you don't have to remember whether a function was
> an ap_ or an apr_ function. 

i see that as a feature, for example, if i write a libfoo that uses only
apr_ functions, i know that it can be reused outside of httpd.

> Also, the namespaces shouldn't be
> seperate, because it would get very confusing to have both ap_blah and
> apr_blah in the source tree.

yeah, i don't think we should ever have both ap_blah and apr_blah in the
source tree.  it'll just be up to us humans to make sure that doesn't
happen, rather than the linker :)
i think most everybody would agree, if we were starting from scratch and
there was no 1.3.x., using a different prefix for libapr functions would
be the right thing to do.  i don't expect this change to be much more
painful than the big namespace cleanup when every extern was given an ap_

View raw message