Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:26:43 AM -0500 Jim Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm opposed to nested includes because it makes it difficult to diagnose
include ordering violations but I realize that's a losing battle.
Nested includes are fine for cases where there are actual dependencies.
And there are arguments to be made both ways for software that uses the
model where every source file includes some common header that's
expected to include all the required system headers. Outside of the
cache manager, AFS mostly does not use that model. It seems to me that
it is inappropriate to add a new #include to afsutil.h which does not
satisfy a dependency of that header, rather than modifying the affected
source files.
I am complete unreligious on that matter: it's wrong and needs to be
fixed.
I showed you what the problem is and how one could fix it, done so in
numerous occasions in the past. As explained, afsutil.h looked
attractive as it leaves the option open to switch everything to
afs_inet_ntoa() with a simple #define. More earth to earth: it
involves patching only 1 rather stable file, which suits somebody who
routinely has ~30 patches to apply to every AFS version before it can
go production.
You can do better? Applause! Exaltation! Hurrah... do it, please!
As a service I'd ask that you let me know as I don't want to carry
around obsolete patches forever.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rainer Toebbicke
European Laboratory for Particle Physics(CERN) - Geneva, Switzerland
Phone: +41 22 767 8985 Fax: +41 22 767 7155
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
