Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "Brian Havard" <brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au>
To: "dev@httpd.apache.org" <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 02:19:33 +1000 (EST)
Reply-To: "Brian Havard" <brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au>
Priority: Normal
In-Reply-To: <01e601c16797$d47f7510$94c0b0d0@v505>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server protocol.c
Message-Id: <E161UUH-0005M2-00@zakath.apana.org.au>

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 08:18:55 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

>From: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:56 AM
>
>
>> Um. That doesn't look right.
>
>It doesn't but it is ;)
>
>> Those macros are based on *linkage*, not usage. If server/protocol.c occurs
>> within the "core" DLL on Windows, then it must use the AP_CORE_DECLARE()
>> macro.
>> 
>> Those macros have nothing to do with visibility, and everything to do with
>> linkage.
>> 
>> OtherBill knows the most here, so let's hear his opinion here. I only
>> /think/ something may be wrong here.
>
>Would be wrong, except that AP_DECLARE refers to the core module.  The difference
>is an abstract concept that goes back to early Apache 1.3 porting.  In theory, we
>could ignore all AP_CORE_DECLARES (leave them un-dllexported) and have very
>private core module.  In fact, everyone seems to dip their hands in there so
>they are exported, I believe.
>
>So today, what Doug changed should be a noop - and CORE is not much more than
>window dressing to tell folks the API is internal and subject to change.  Not
>that there is much difference in the 2.0 tree between core/non-core, or stable
>APIs and fluid APIs :)

Actually, build/make_exports.awk does NOT currently include
AP_CORE_DECLAREd functions so platforms that depend on it to generate the
list of core exports do not export core functions. This is actually a
problem because mod_proxy uses several core functions so it fails to build
correctly as a DSO. The offending symbols are:

ap_set_config_vectors()
ap_merge_per_dir_configs()
ap_create_request_config()
ap_create_per_dir_config()

Should they get their CORE removed too?

-- 
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 |  Brian Havard                 |  "He is not the messiah!                   |
 |  brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au  |  He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------