httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bojan Smojver <>
Subject Re: The use of CORE_PRIVATE
Date Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:26:00 GMT
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:56 -0500, Edward Rudd wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:25:44 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> [snip]
> > Is it "legal" for third party modules to rely on CORE_PRIVATE in order to gain
> > access to functions (and other bits) that would otherwise be out of bounds? For
> > instance, I'm trying to rely on functions that help in creating sub-requests,
> > such as ap_create_request_config(), which is only available if I define
> > CORE_PRIVATE. I'm not sure if that The Right Thing To Do (TM)...
> I believe it is more of "you better know what you are doing" while using
> these functions and structures.  It isn't like the Linux kernel's
> MODULE_LICENSE where if you are GPL you gain access to more of the kernel
> then if you are not.  There are no legal ramifications of using the
> CORE_PRIVATE as I use it quite a bit in my mod_ftpd module on

I see now that I asked this question the wrong way... Sorry :-(

When I said "legal", I meant that in the technical sense. Along the
lines of "if I rely on what's below CORE_PRIVATE, am I setting myself up
for a disaster when those things change without notice?"

Basically, are functions and other bits available under CORE_PRIVATE a
fair game for module developers or are they in publicly available
headers by some historical accident? Are they "standard" part of the
API, but as you said for "the ones that know what they're doing" (which
would then exclude me :-)?


View raw message