At 01:55 PM 10/7/2003, Brian Pane wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>Dumb Q perhaps; for APR-UTIL 1.0 don't we want to change: >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket apr_bucket; >>typedef struct apr_bucket_brigade apr_bucket_brigade_t; >>etc >> >>to follow our convention: >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket_t apr_bucket_t; >>typedef struct apr_bucket_brigade_t apr_bucket_brigade_t; >>etc... >> > >+1 as long as we maintain (deprecated) typedefs >for the old names for backward compatibility.
For 0.9.4 certainly! How do others feel about keeping backwards compat in the APR-UTIL 1.0? Bill
