OS abstractions (inlines, Windows)

[Paul Sutton <pa...@ukweb.com>]

I posted a patch last week that would allow us to OS abstract functions,
macros and inlines. The only comment I got was from Ben, who queried the
use of inline functions on systems without GCC, and suggested using
macros, side effects and all. I'm agnostic about what is best to do here. 

But in either case, I'd like to get the basic structure committed so that
OS abstractions (either as inlines or macros) are at last possible. The
patch did this by creating os.c, os.h and os-inline.c with suitable basic
contents, and updating Configure slightly to let the makefile in os/*
determine what header files need moving to $(INCDIR) (currently src/main,
but in the future this could be a separate header dir). 

There is also an issue involved with making this work on Windows.
Basically I want the OS abstraction to be able to add header files to the
$(INCDIR). But under Windows we don't have that level of control over the
make process (in fact, it can be done, but would require people build
os/win32/ApacheOS first, which may not happen). So for Windows I would
like to see a top-level build script or makefile which initially copies
the OS-specific files as necessary from os/win32 to $(INCDIR). The
alternative is to add os/win32 to the CPP include directories which while
valid makes things more difficult to manage in the future. I required
makefile or build script would also let us do an other required changes
before the build proper starts.

So what I would like to see are some comments on the os/unix OS
abstraction patch. If this is not going to be committed then there is no
point worrying about the windows stuff - it'll stay as it is, rather a
mess where any DLL which needs OS specific stuff has to build in the
os/win32/*.c file as required, rather than linking against a single
ApacheOS library. 

Possible comments are:

  - yes to the idea and patch
  - no, I don't like to idea/concept/patch
  - yes but after 1.3 is out (ie hold OS abstraction until 2.0)

Note that I'm not asking for votes on wholesale changes to do OS
abstraction for 1.3 (which probably aren't justified at the moment), just
the ability to let us add OS macros, functions and inlines if necessary
(and ap_is_path_absolute() seems fairly necessary

//pcs

Re: OS abstractions (inlines, Windows)

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Paul Sutton wrote:

> Note that I'm not asking for votes on wholesale changes to do OS
> abstraction for 1.3 (which probably aren't justified at the moment), just
> the ability to let us add OS macros, functions and inlines if necessary
> (and ap_is_path_absolute() seems fairly necessary

Yup even if the wholesale abstraction doesn't occur for 1.3, we'd easily
clean up a lot of code with just ap_is_path_absolute. 

Dean

Re: OS abstractions (inlines, Windows)

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>]

At 10:33 AM 9/8/97 +0000, Paul Sutton wrote:
>Possible comments are:
>
>  - yes to the idea and patch
>  - no, I don't like to idea/concept/patch
>  - yes but after 1.3 is out (ie hold OS abstraction until 2.0)
>
>Note that I'm not asking for votes on wholesale changes to do OS
>abstraction for 1.3 (which probably aren't justified at the moment), just
>the ability to let us add OS macros, functions and inlines if necessary
>(and ap_is_path_absolute() seems fairly necessary

I think it's worth doing some necessary elements (like ap_is_path_absolute)
for 1.3.

	Brian


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
"Why not?" - TL           brian@organic.com - hyperreal.org - apache.org