Yesterday Florian Forster wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:29:07PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > Most of them are already rrdc_*. I don't see a reason to s/^rrdc/rrdcd/. > > > > sure, rrdc_* is fine too > > I used the `rrdc_' prefix for all exported functions which connect to > the server. The `c' was meant as apprevation for `client'. > > I have to admit I don't quite see the need for introducing a different > prefix. What problem is that supposed to solve? > > As for `rrd_cmd_flush': I used that name, because there already was a > function called `rrd_flush' that was exported. Dropping that old > function and changing the new function's name is, in my opinion, not a > good move and will create problems.
yes dropping rrd_flush from the api is not a good idea, otoh it does not acomplish anything sensible in the code, so I propose the following: have rrdc_flush for the client flushing function and turn rrd_flush into a no-op for backward compatibility cheers tobi > > Regards, > -octo > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch [email protected] ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
