Michael Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tcl_CreateObjCommand(interp, "r", cmd_r, NULL, NULL);
> > 'request_rec' might be more descriptive. Is there a problem with > > putting all these commands in a namespace of their own, like > > 'Apache::' (to borrow something from the perl folks)? > hmm, I suppose I could do this, I thought mod_perl also used a > convention like `r'? Leggibility isn't always that important for the perl folks, either;-) If it were used with the namespace, ::apache::r, it would be easy to pick out, but I worry about grepping through code trying to find an 'r' somewhere (if it has been imported, for instance, into the current namespace). > The reason I used r is because it is customary for the request_rec > variable passed to handlers to be called r. So if your writing > modules you always see statements like this `r->server_name'. I > thought it would be an easier transfer of knowledge if someone knew > how to deal with C modules. This makes sense... but more so for the command names, I think. > This is the same thought applied to the command names for the > functions, they are all synonomous with the apache function name > ap_*. Let me know what you think. As far as putting them in a > namespace, I don't see why this can't be done. Another thing... I haven't looked at it in detail yet, and haven't tried running things, either, but could you explain a bit about your thoughts behind the execution model? It runs a file in a namespace using the filename itself for the namespace name? Any thoughts about generalizing this out even further? Thanks, -- David N. Welton Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/ Personal: http://www.efn.org/~davidw/ Work: http://www.innominate.com/
