lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Tasks: task #7410, Don't include internal headers in...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #7410: Don't include internal headers in api header files
Submitter: | Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> | ||
Submitted: | Sun 28 Oct 2007 02:03:05 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Should Start On: | Sun 28 Oct 2007 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Should be Finished on: | Sun 28 Oct 2007 12:00:00 AM UTC | Priority: | 4 |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | goldsimon | Percent Complete: | 100% |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Sun 18 Nov 2007 12:17:12 AM UTC, comment #15: |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sat 17 Nov 2007 06:27:17 PM UTC, comment #14: Oh, unless you have other feelings toward ipv6, we can close this as done. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 17 Nov 2007 06:26:21 PM UTC, comment #13: The checksum routines were defined in inet.h which was in include/ipv4/lwip. They are still defined in include/ipv6/lwip/inet.h, I didn't make any changes to ipv6...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sat 17 Nov 2007 12:58:14 PM UTC, comment #12: About last change, it's fine, but, why inet_chksum.h is in include/ipv4/lwip, and not in include/lwip ? Isn't it shared with IPv6 folder ?
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 16 Nov 2007 08:03:00 AM UTC, comment #11: Since there is already "lot" of new files in 1.3.0 (netbuf, autoip, igmp...) I think it's good to do it now. |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Fri 16 Nov 2007 07:18:18 AM UTC, comment #10: We'll have to change makefiles/projects anyway because I'm about to create a new file inet_chksum.c and move the checksum functions there. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 15 Nov 2007 10:48:00 PM UTC, comment #9: fine for me, even if we need to change makefiles/projects, it's a minor change, but it's cleaner.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 15 Nov 2007 09:13:30 PM UTC, comment #8: What about moving inet.c to ipv4 and inet6.c to ipv6/inet.c?? |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 12 Nov 2007 10:45:43 PM UTC, comment #7: I think it's should be good to split now inet functions and checksim functions before release 1.3.0. |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 06 Nov 2007 08:34:03 PM UTC, comment #6: Checked in (without changing tcp.h).
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 06 Nov 2007 08:13:22 PM UTC, comment #5: Good for me, as long we avoid to include api.h in tcp.h (IRC chat conclusion).
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Tue 06 Nov 2007 07:54:35 PM UTC, comment #4: The second patch is fine by me. |
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Tue 06 Nov 2007 07:46:32 PM UTC, comment #3: OK, that doesn't sound too excited...
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 28 Oct 2007 09:57:35 PM UTC, comment #2: If internal lwip structs don't cause any build problems, I'm not sure to understand what is the real advantage (I suppose you want to be able to do some "internal" changes in lwIP, without talking about any "api breakage"). After all, users can always include api_internal.h and directly access to netconn fields. So, it's not really more "protected". If we want to avoid that an user directly access to netconn or netbuf fields , perhaps we could just add some comments in these structs? Like "don't do any direct access to these fields, they can be change in future release, use the API functions for that", or simply "INTERNAL FIELD, DON'T ACCESS IT". In all cases, if most of developers are agree to do that, I would prefer one file per struct/api/file, like "netconn_structs.h" and "netbuf_structs.h" ("structs" and not "struct", because we could declare some others subtypes), because netbuf should be used without netconn.
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Sun 28 Oct 2007 02:53:43 PM UTC, comment #1: I don't think it's good to increase code size just to separate API headers. Are we saying it's ok to use the internal macros or not? If we're saying people "should" use the functions, not the macros.... except if you want smaller code, then use the internal API... then that doesn't seem like a clean API.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Sun 28 Oct 2007 02:03:05 PM UTC, original submission:
Picking up the idea from task #6683, I'd like to remove the need to include internal header files in api.h and netbuf.h (sockets.h is already OK).
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 7 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-11-21 | goldsimon | Status | None | Done | |
Percent Complete | 0% | 100% | |||
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-11-06 | goldsimon | Attached File | - | Added api_h_cleanup.patch, #14332 | |
2007-10-28 | goldsimon | Attached File | - | Added api_internal.patch, #14234 | |
Attached File | - | Added api_internal.h, #14235 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-4448.
Corresponding source code
ok for me