zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Darroch <chr...@pearsoncmg.com>
Subject Re: ZooKeeper 3.1 and C API/ABI
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:46:38 GMT
Benjamin Reed wrote:

> you are correct we usually increment the version number on an API breakage.
> in the olden days if you called a function with less parameters than
> expected, a null would get passed. if this still happens we are ABI
> compatible. (i haven't tried it though...)

   Yeah, I wondered about that; it's not something I'd want to assume
worked on every platform, I think.

Patrick Hunt wrote:

> Btw, the version is in the config.h file, generated by autotools, as 
> VERSION. We don't break that out as individual parameters but we can if 
> there is interest.

   That's useful, I'd missed that.  Thanks; that should work for me
for now.

> To get this worked out and working will will take some time. If it's ok 
> with you, and if there is community interest in doing this, why don't we 
> address these process changes in 3.2? Please enter a JIRA to document 
> this for 3.2 and we'll work something out. We'll also do a better job of 
> documenting exactly what the rules are related to non-bw compat api 
> changes and version numbering.

   I'll think about doing that, sure.  FWIW, there are also the libtool
conventions for library file naming to consider.


GPG Key ID: 366A375B
GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263  E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B

View raw message