Joseph Kowalski wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation, but the reason I'm inquiring is to determine > if the name libcmd is significant. > > As the thread points out, we have two libraries (both from AT&T) called > libcmd. Their contents are rather unrelated. Rather than merging them > (which seems very unclean), I'm investigating the possibility of renaming > one. If we renamed the libcmd associated with ksh, would anybody notice? > > Actually, if the answer is "Yes", we have a bigger problem. It is considered > generally bad practice to mix Public and Private APIs in a library (but its > not like we haven't made this error before).
The answer is "yes" and it cannot be changed easily without running into other huge problems (e.g. we just trading one hell for another and I really like to stick with one we already have chosen - the current solution already has working and TESTED code and and I really do not have the resources, neither time or nerves, to come up with a completely new design and get that tested again). The current design was made with LOTS of thinking and we already had a bitter debate&&fight over this issue (and I already pointed out that exactly this bitter debate nearly destroyed the project). There isn't really another option except blowing one side of completely up - and I will not let that happen. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
