On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 16:45 -0500, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > * 47: There should only be a "libfoo.h" when there is a corresponding > > > libfoo.so. This header file should be named something more > > > appropriate like "ofmt.h". Likewise, fix comment on line 77 > > > > I was following the precedent set by libdladm/common/lib* (many files > > of which were added by Clearview :-) > > The libdladm header collection was a bit of a compromise and in retrospect > a confusing one -- but at least everything beings with "libdl".
True. FWIW, my personal opinion is that the collection of header files that libdladm API consumers need to pick from is a mistake (not just a confusing compromise), and one that's not too late to correct. Consumers of the libdladm API (regardless of what corner of the API they're using) should only need to include a single header file. All consumers need to include libdladm.h in order to call dladm_open(), which is a pre-requisite to using any other part of the API, having all symbols visible from there is much simpler. It doesn't pollute the application namespace either, since libdladm symbols are carefully prefixed with "dladm_". In addition to that, the distinction between some of these is confusing (e.g. libdladm.h vs libdllink.h vs libdlmgmt.h). -Seb
