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?