Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Sender: chuck@keel.topsail.org
Message-ID: <3986F40F.4DC9FFE7@topsail.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:00:15 -0400
From: Chuck Murcko <chuck@topsail.org>
Organization: The Topsail Group
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: ap_ vs apr_
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007262034460.29024-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.10.10008010028000.350-100000@mojo.covalent.net>
 <20000801031405.B3139@manojk.users.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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. 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.
> 
> Now, I personally preferred apr_, mainly because switching from two
> namespaces to one is easy, while switching later from one to two is
> harder.
> 
> But, I think it's a bad thing to have all these functions changing
> names every few months on a whim.
> 

Hmmm, perhaps changing ap_ to something else, like apa_, would be
better? Still a compromise two name spaces, but you could at least tell
the APR functions from the Apache-specific ones.

Thoughts?
-- 
Chuck
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
chuck@topsail.org