On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Tomasz Kojm tk...@clamav.net wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:39:47 +0300
Eugene Crosser cros...@average.org wrote:
To mitigate this problem (if you *really* want to get rid of cl_limits
structure exposed to the user), you might introduce separate pairs of
accessor functions for different types of arguments, e.g.:
cl_engine_{get|set}_size(...,uint64_t *val)
cl_engine_{get|set}_int(...,uint32_t *val)
cl_engine_{get|set}_str(...,char *val)
This way, there will be no chance to pass the argument of wrong type.
Hi Eugene,
Thanks for your email and suggestions. While the original functions
were very generic, they could indeed lead to some confusion.
Therefore I replaced them with the following set:
extern int cl_engine_set_num(struct cl_engine *engine,
enum cl_engine_field field, long long num);
extern long long cl_engine_get_num(const struct cl_engine *engine,
enum cl_engine_field field, int *err);
extern int cl_engine_set_str(struct cl_engine *engine,
enum cl_engine_field field, const char *str);
extern const char *cl_engine_get_str(const struct cl_engine *engine,
enum cl_engine_field field, int *err);
These functions eliminate some possible programming errors and
limitations of the old ones, eg. cl_engine_get_str doesn't require
a buffer anymore; it's also much easier to set values with
cl_engine_set_num.
And here we are coming to my second concern. By requiring the the user
to use bit-size-specific types (uint32_t, uint64_t), you force them to
deploy all the dark magic of having these types defined portably on
different systems, and to essentially duplicate the logic implemented in
cltypes.h. I believe that there is no good reason for that. While there
may be necessary to have bit-size-specific types *inside* clamav, having
them leaking through the API is not justified, in my opinion. I think
that it would be cleaner to use more common types in the API, like this:
The new functions use 'char *' and 'long long' for handling the values
so this issue should be solved as well.
And a final note: I think it's worth mentioning in the documentation
what is the relation between options passed to cl_init() and options
passed to scanning functions. If they are different, maybe it's better
to name them differently, like init_options and scan_options.
I renamed them, too.
Hello Tomasz,
Since API was chenged one more time, a new RC will be released to
0.95? I'm just asking it because I maintain clamav at FreeBSD ports
and I tested all dependant ports with clam 0.95-RC1 and notified
maintainers of all ports that doesn't build with new API to fix it. I'm just
wondering if with these new changes those ports can or not break
again.
Thanks
--
Renato Botelho
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net
