httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Collins-Sussman <suss...@collab.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta
Date Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:40:50 GMT

On Feb 24, 2005, at 1:52 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:37 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, 
> Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> Uhm, no.  By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical
>> Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.'  Other platforms
>> are using the construct to extract public symbol lists now, IIUC.
>>
>> APR_DECLARE (DAV_DECLARE, etc)is our shorthand of what has been
>> publicizied and what is internal.
>
> No, we never declared them, hence they weren't officially part of the 
> API. The fact that Unix-based OSes technically throw everything into 
> the API isn't part of our API contract.

I'm talking about gstein's intent.  My understanding is that from day 
one, mod_dav was supposed to provide an API that allows anyone to write 
a back-end provider.  In the process of writing mod_dav_svn, we 
discover that parts the provider API aren't accessible from win32.   So 
the bug here is just sloppy execution of the original API idea.  Things 
should have explicitly exported/declared from the beginning, and I 
guess it's just dumb luck that it's been working on Unix.

>
> Note that I'm not saying that making the mod_dav API change isn't 
> good, but I'm miffed at the claim that this is justification to -1 a 
> release.
>

I don't think of it as "changing an API", but rather, "declaring an API 
correctly, one that has always existed."   Should it hold up a 2.2 
release?  Oy, you're right, I guess not.  It's not like there are 
thousands of users out there scrambling to write mod_dav back-ends.  
:-)


Mime
View raw message