code prefix

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

I've been using "serf_" for the prefix in my examples. Sander used "aps_"
when we were chatting.

The prefix is Yet Another Discussion Item. :-)

Suggestions? Preferences?


I like serf_ because it makes it clear what library you're talking about.
Detractors of apr-serf might say it just points to the non-relationship to
APR :-) I'm not so concerned about the latter as utility/obviousness to
users.

This prefix also ties in with header naming, library names, etc. ("serf.h"
and "serf_basic.h"; libserf.la; etc)

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: code prefix

[Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>]

> I've been using "serf_" for the prefix in my examples. Sander used "aps_"
> when we were chatting.
> 
> The prefix is Yet Another Discussion Item. :-)
> 
> Suggestions? Preferences?

I prefer serf_* myself merely because it is easier on my eyes after all
the other ap* variants we have: ap_ apu_ apr_

(only problem is my fingers keep trying to type serv_... ;)

-aaron

RE: code prefix

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: 02 October 2001 12:24

> I've been using "serf_" for the prefix in my examples. Sander used "aps_"
> when we were chatting.

Yes, but I hadn't seen serf_ then yet :)

So, +1 for serf_

> The prefix is Yet Another Discussion Item. :-)
>
> Suggestions? Preferences?
>
>
> I like serf_ because it makes it clear what library you're talking about.
> Detractors of apr-serf might say it just points to the non-relationship to
> APR :-) I'm not so concerned about the latter as utility/obviousness to
> users.
>
> This prefix also ties in with header naming, library names, etc. ("serf.h"
> and "serf_basic.h"; libserf.la; etc)

Ack.

> Cheers,
> -g

Sander