Re: providing a libidn compatibility API

[Simon Josefsson]

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tim Ruehsen <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> Cool. Is the idn2_* intentional? I was thinking of providing
>>> compatibility in a way that sources do not need to be changed at all
>>> (i.e., provide an idna.h, and compatibility idna_* functions - which
>>> could also be wrappers). It would be very nice if we could compile
>>> programs that use libidn, using libidn2 without any changes (at least
>>> for the majority of them).
>> The naming is intentional because
>> 1. What about apps providing idna2003 *and* idna2008 (libidn and libidn2) ?
>> 2. idn2_ is the namespace for libidn2 (mainly because of 1)
>> We could use a define being set before #include <idn2.h>, e.g. 
>> IDN2_LIBIDN_API.
>> WDYT ?
>
> I'd expect the idna2003 + idna2008 apps to be rare, but you got a
> point. I think the define approach is reasonable.

Agreed.

In practice I believe we will see significant number of applications
that will link to both libraries because of indirect dependencies.  It
will easily take 5-10 years before applications stop link to libidn in
the supported released GNU/Linux distributions.

/Simon

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature