Re: ap_ vs apr_ revisited.

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

Ryan Bloom wrote:
> ...
> Early last week, I was talking to a group that will be porting Apache to
> another platform.  I explained the relationship between Apache and apr,
> and the hope that the vast majority of OS specific code will be localized
> in apr and kept out of Apache.  I showed them some apr functions from
> after the change to ap_.  Their first question was "So if we see a
> function with the prefix "ap_" that's an apr function, and it needs to be
> ported?"  At this point, I had to explain the decision, and I watch their
> faces fall, as they realized they had to work to figure out which
> functions belonged to which project.  (Yes, most of the functions are
> documented in the docs directory, but That doesn't mean all of them all,
> and I am willing to bet in the future, the docs won't stay up to date.)

This is silly. All "apr" functions would be under src/lib/apr/. Just
port anything you find in there.

What is the problem with that? Port by location in the source tree, NOT
the name.

This is really silly to revisit... there is no "compelling reason".

>...
> I would like to see the prefix for apr functions to be:
> 
>     [X] ap_       [ ] apr_        [ ] I don't care.

My vote is only because I know a tally will still be taken. However, I
*protest* the need to vote in the first place.

-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/