Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 05:23 PM 4/21/2005, Branko Čibej wrote:
>This, I think, is a classic case of programmers' hubris. We should've defined apr_pid_t &co. on all platforms, not polluted the namespace with names that APR doesn't own (and that will clash with any Windows implementation of a POSIX-like API).

++1.

My last point about the patch to apr.hw to define FD_SETSIZE
suffers this exact same hubris.

The quicker we (open source projects, collectively) stop trying 
to enforce the 'one right way' to use posix/win32 etc, the sooner
these projects will compile (collectively) with one another.

Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Erik Huelsmann wrote:

>On 4/22/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>At 05:23 PM 4/21/2005, Branko Cibej wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>This, I think, is a classic case of programmers' hubris. We should've defined apr_pid_t &co. on all platforms, not polluted the namespace with names that APR doesn't own (and that will clash with any Windows implementation of a POSIX-like API).
>>>      
>>>
>>++1.
>>
>>My last point about the patch to apr.hw to define FD_SETSIZE
>>suffers this exact same hubris.
>>
>>The quicker we (open source projects, collectively) stop trying
>>to enforce the 'one right way' to use posix/win32 etc, the sooner
>>these projects will compile (collectively) with one another.
>>    
>>
>
>I take that as a signal to go implement apr_pid_t and friends for all
>platforms (a patch for thrunk).  Do you have anything you want to
>stress before I start the work?
>  
>
Yes. Check if the APR code is actually using pid_t in public interfaces. 
I suspect that if it is, then apr_os_pid_t would be a more appropriate name.

-- Brane

Re: Win32: Ruby & APR; build problems for Ruby Subversion SWIG bindings

[Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>]

On 4/22/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> At 05:23 PM 4/21/2005, Branko Cibej wrote:
> >This, I think, is a classic case of programmers' hubris. We should've defined apr_pid_t &co. on all platforms, not polluted the namespace with names that APR doesn't own (and that will clash with any Windows implementation of a POSIX-like API).
> 
> ++1.
> 
> My last point about the patch to apr.hw to define FD_SETSIZE
> suffers this exact same hubris.
> 
> The quicker we (open source projects, collectively) stop trying
> to enforce the 'one right way' to use posix/win32 etc, the sooner
> these projects will compile (collectively) with one another.

I take that as a signal to go implement apr_pid_t and friends for all
platforms (a patch for thrunk).  Do you have anything you want to
stress before I start the work?


bye,


Erik.