Why memsys??? I'm sorry I just don't follow the logic. The code deals with memory doesn't it?
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:54:51AM +0100, David Reid wrote: > > Does anyone have any objections to simply calling this stuff > > apr_memory_blah? > > > > That'll give us > > > > apr_memory_malloc > > apr_memory_realloc > > apr_memory_free > > apr_memory_is_tracking > > apr_memory_create > > apr_memory_reset > > apr_memory_destroy > > apr_standard_memory_create > > apr_tracking_memory_create > > etc... > > prefer memsys, it says more. Do we need to say more? Do users really care? > > > This seems to make more sense and is short enough I think. If I don't hear > > any objections I'll try to make the change over the weekend while in > > Montreal. > > > > Also, do we plan on making the plug-ins modular so they can be loaded at run > > time? Just a thought... > > yes, that was part of a plan, too. > > then you can publish the API, name the .so that you wish to be loaded. OK, but it's a long way aways yet anyway... david
