Re: [API] r18266

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 10:31:55PM +0100, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
>...
> Hrm!?! Some time ago, I revised the notification API to use a struct
> instead of lots of parameters just so we could add more in the future if

For a notification API, you're the only one allocating the structure.
Stating a contract that a client shouldn't allocate it is fine. If a
structure needs to be alloc'd by a client, then a factory function is
best (per my previous email).

> needed. The reason was to add some field when we implemented locking. If
> you call that a "little API revving", then go look for that diff...
>
> Also, what about our version check macros? Don't they protect applications
> from such badness?

If the client uses them, then they can help. But they protect against
going backwards in time, or major revision changes. Increasing minor
revs are fine, so if you change a struct size across a minor rev, then
the check macros aren't going to say anything (since that is defined
as a legal version change).

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org