Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote on Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 08:55:21PM +0100: > Martin Cracauer <cracauer_at_cons.org> writes: > > DES, can you be more specific in what way I break the API? > > You changed the size of struct url_stat. Not to argue but that is an ABI change, not an API one. I certainly don't see how this qualifies as "disgusting" as you put it. Ok, how about I change the inline struct to a constructor/pointer-passing mechanism (with changed names) and we bump the shared library version number? That way fields can be added in an ABI and API backwards-compatible manner in the future. The way it is organized right now libfetch effectivly shields the application from HTTP headers and the API chosen for header information transportation is locked against extensions. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer_at_cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/Received on Fri Dec 30 2005 - 19:20:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:50 UTC