> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:29 PM > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:00:24AM -0800, Cliff Woolley wrote: > >... > > 1) I assume that the ap_* prefix on files/etc hasn't been changed to apr_* > > yet > > simply to ease the transition to httpd-2.0, and that the namespace change > > will come > > in a later pass. Right? > > Yup. I'm not sure what the strategy for this will be, though, since changing > a bunch of #includes throughout Apache will be a fair amount of work.
But for long term clarity, apr_ is definately clearer. I wouldn't worry about the short-term pain. I'm a very strong +1 on that issue. > We also have some other tweaky things such as the HOOK macros. You may have > noticed that Ryan had to undo the APR rename. I haven't looked into it, but > I bet it was because we don't have all the right APR_DECLARE macro magic > available. Could have also been that he didn't want to change all of the > users of the macros :-) Aren't we including "apr.h" from the apr header, and building apr prior to apr-util? I'd suggest this is manditory. apr-util should let apr do the 90% of the work required. There is a much bigger problem ... the simple wrappers that add the linkage specs _must_ move back into apache, I'll do that in a bit. Bigger issues; Why do we add the additional complexity of a src/ directory within apr-util? Can't we keep to the same simplicity as apr itself? Suggesting, therefore, that we aught to have apr-util/buckets rather than apr-util/src/buckets. The extra branch doesn't accomplish anything for us, and makes it harder to jump between repositories. Bill
