On 10.09.2012 18:32, Joachim Bauch wrote: > On 10.09.2012 16:51, Nick Mathewson wrote: [...] >> I'd like a better distinction between functions that should be called >> by the implementation, and functions that exist to be called by the >> users of this type. Right now I am pretty sure which are which, but >> only pretty sure. > > How would you like to separate this? Would a dedicated prefix/suffix > for methods to be used by the implementation work? > >> It could be cool to have a way to version the API. > > I see, we could add a field to the "bufferevent_indirect_callbacks" > that specifies the version number or a bitmask of the available > features. > >> I'm also with Mark Ellzey in that I'd like to see a quick example of >> how this would get used (that is to say, a little example module). > > Here is a quick-hacked pseudo-code example of how this could be used: > https://gist.github.com/3691934
did anybody have a change to take a look yet? I wouldn't want to waste development effort by starting completely without any feedback... Best regards, Joachim *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@freehaven.net with unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.