On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Guenter Knauf <fua...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jeff, Niq,
> Am 30.03.2011 01:26, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Guenter Knauf<fua...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 30.03.2011 00:52, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
>>>>
>>>> are you really sure this is the right thing? /me doubt ...
>>>> 1. its in an internal header - if we want to expoert that function then
>>>> it should be moved to a public header
>>>> 2. if you look into apr_xml.c you can find:
>>>> APR_DECLARE(apr_xml_parser *) apr_xml_parser_create(apr_pool_t *pool)
>>>> {
>>>> return apr_xml_parser_create_ex(pool,&start_handler,&end_handler,
>>>> &cdata_handler);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> so why should something directly link against apr_xml_parser_create_ex()
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> I dont find any other reference to apr_xml_parser_create_ex() beside the
>>> one
>>> in apr_xml.c; so I guess the linkage error happens because
>>> apr_xml_parser_create_ex() is wrongly marked for export in the C file,
>>> or?
>>
>> right, apr_xml_expat/libxml had API-style linkage
>>
>> xml/apr_xml_expat.c:APR_DECLARE(apr_xml_parser *)
>> apr_xml_parser_create_ex(apr_pool_t *pool,
>> xml/apr_xml_libxml2.c:APR_DECLARE(apr_xml_parser *)
>> apr_xml_parser_create_ex(apr_pool_t *pool,
>>
>> meanwhile, apr_xml_parser_create_ex() certainly *sounds* like an API
>>
>> niq, is that to be exported eventually? otherwise, the APR_DECLARE()
>> can be ripped off and the two implementations be given a less
>> API-sounding name
>
> I still dont believe we should export this function, and have just created
> the patch to remove he APR_DECLARE() - if there's shortly some proposal for
> a better name then I'll take that into account, otherwise I will commit the
> removal only within a hour -- unless someone screams :-)
how about changing the _ex to _internal?
