[Freeswitch-dev] apr_ vs. switch_ namespace questions

[Matt Klein]

MC,
     Best policy is to use switch_ and not use the lazy apr_. I cannot think of a 
good reason, maybe others can -- but, If you find occurrences of 
non-conformance, patches are welcome!

m



On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Michael Collins wrote:

> Guys,
>
>
>
> bkw gave me some homework and now I have a few questions.  I notice that
> in switch-types.h there are all sorts of typedef struct statements that
> create a switch_ version of the corresponding apr_ type.  However, I've
> also noticed that scattered throughout the source that there are
> numerous occasions where the apr_ namespace is used even when there is a
> switch_ equivalent available.  Example: using apr_pool_t instead of
> switch_memory_pool_t in mod_openmrcp.c.
>
>
>
> Questions:  Is it FS standard policy/best practices always to use the
> switch_ namespace?  Are there legitimate situations where one would
> prefer apr_ instead of switch_?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> MC
>
>
>
> P.S. - If there are cases where apr_ is used when there are switch_
> equivalents, does that mean there is an impending codebase cleanup
> project to make everything consistent?
>
>