I have to agree that there are definitely bigger fish to fry. High on
my list
is making range requests and large files fast which means changing the
cache structure
a bit which should be done before the release. I'd rather concentrate
on that
and just try to ensure that the existing C API is as clean as possible.
We can
always prototype a C++ API on top of the C API and decide which one is the
"base" later... like 3.0.
How about an experimental C++ API on top of the C API in the main tree
but in a "contrib" directory so it is not officially supported but it is
there for
folks who are capable of vetting the code themselves.
john
Belmon, Stephane wrote:
Ditto. Can any C++ zealots please stand up? ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Hedstrom [mailto:zw...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:53 PM
To: trafficserver-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: C++ version of InkAPI ?
On 11/25/2009 04:32 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
I'd suggest we come up with a list of the requirements for what needs
to be done in the "2.x" branch, and then freeze it. I'd be hard to
convince that addressing the issues listed above is not one of those
requirements :).
I should say, changing APIs to be C++ is definitely not on my personal
"requirements" list, but I'm open to the ideas. You know me, I'm not
much of a C++ "biggot" in any way (me and templates don't go well
together). If we decide that changing APIs to C++ can wait until a
(much) later 3.0 release, than I'm totally fine with that (or, even
canning the idea of C++ APIs as well, I just don't really feel strongly
either way). There might be bigger fishes to fry honestly, like you say,
getting a stable release is definitely one of them (but, I still think
we need to examine the existing APIs, and fix that which is missing or
outright broken).
Cheers,
-- leif
Protected by Websense Hosted Email Security -- www.websense.com
