apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout() decl in apr_support.h which is in public include directory

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On 11/12/05, Brian Pane <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > On 11/11/05, Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On 11/11/2005 at 1:40:32 pm, in message
> >> <cc...@mail.gmail.com>, Jeff
> >> Trawick
> >> <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 11/11/05, Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com> wrote:
> >>>>   Reposting to the APR list with a new subject line.  Does this
> >>>> need
> >> to
> >>>> be taken care of in APR 1.2.x before httpd 2.2 ships?
> >>>
> >>> apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout() is private APR function (not API).  Is
> >>> the caller outside of APR?
> >>
> >> Yes, HTTPD.  trunk/server/core_filters.c
> >
> > Simply shocking ;)  That code needs to be fixed to call a real API :(
>
> I just double-checked the declaration, and apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout()
> currently is implemented as part of the public API.  I don't have any
> strong
> objection to making it private, though (e.g., by wrapping the
> declaration in
> an "#ifdef APR_PRIVATE" or moving apr_support.h to apr/include/arch/
> unix).

apr_support.h has these comments...

/**
 * @defgroup apr_support Internal APR support functions
 * @ingroup APR
 * @{
 */

It must be for pragmatic reasons that apr_support.h is in the apr
include directory instead of include/arch.  Perhaps
include/arch/apr_private_common.h is more appropriate?

Re: apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout() decl in apr_support.h which is in public include directory

[Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 08:25:42AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> apr_support.h has these comments...
> 
> /**
>  * @defgroup apr_support Internal APR support functions
>  * @ingroup APR
>  * @{
>  */
> 
> It must be for pragmatic reasons that apr_support.h is in the apr
> include directory instead of include/arch.  Perhaps
> include/arch/apr_private_common.h is more appropriate?

Ouch, yes, definitely.  I wonder whether we need to have an argument 
about whether unintentially exposed functions constitute part of the ABI 
or not first before hiding this again...

joe