I'm just looking at some of the code for the first time in a while so forgive
me for not commenting sooner.
Are you talking about just moving the rivet commands into a ::Rivet namespace?
It sounds like from this and your previous Rivet command scope email that
you're trying to unify everything. I think that's a great idea. It makes
Rivet more of a package that can easily be loaded or not based on the user.
Does anyone else have an opinion here? Are there any other Rivet requests on
the horizon we should be looking at? It sounds like Karl is waking up a bit,
at least as regards to ideas and thoughts, but maybe some code too. I'm
working on a pretty big project in Rivet right now, so my activity level is
sure to increase soon enough. Clif Flynt has thrown his hand in a few times
now.
Combine that with Massimo's tireless work, and we may actually be able to wake
the sleeping giant. At least until we all go back to our regular lives. 0-]
D
On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Massimo Manghi wrote:
Code in src/rivetWWW.c, src/rivetCrypt.c and src/rivetList.c has been so far
independent from definitions in the mod_rivet.h. This was a sensible approach
that made it reusable outside the context of the apache module.
I favor the move of the commands coded in those files into the newly created
Rivet namespace, thus breaking the mentioned independence.
The package Rivet they provide could be also be moved into the module code to
better qualify the whole Rivet namespace (after all Rivet should be a keyword
reserved to the module).
Existing scripts won't be affected, because the module initialization could
'package require Rivet' and user scripts will have a mean to test which
scripting level they're running in by calling 'package require Rivet x.y'
comments are welcome.
-- Massimo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org
