apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: AF_UNIX sockets in APR...
Date Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:18:58 GMT
Yeah, but this is really the thin end of the wedge... :(

What's next? Given that we seem to be adding this because "it's easy on
unix" do we now have to start adding all the windows features we like? Oh
no, we're mainly unix folks aren't we? Sorry, but comments like this make me
verge more on the -1 than -0...

We've talked about this before and we've said that what we're lacking is a
IPC api, not that we're lacking AF_LOCAL support.

APR does not exist to scratch everyones individual itch. Sorry Pier.


> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:15:12PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > I have no problem implementing this feature, but do it right (which may
> > mean not using apr_socket_t), so that it is portable.  We have enough
> > people who have asked for this feature, that not implementing it is kind
> > of stupid, but please, please, please, don't write the API such that it
> > absolutely can't work on Windows.  That completely removes the goal of
> > APR.  We have tried hard not to create functions that can't be written
> > on one of our platforms.  Please don't add a type of communication that
> > isn't portable, that isn't useful in a portable library.
> I think the biggest problem is that we (at least myself) don't know
> what type of API would work for Win32.  If someone with knowledge of
> how this might work on Win32 could describe an API, I think we can
> come up with an implementation in Unix.  Whenever someone cares
> enough to implement the bits in Win32, they can add it.
> And, +1 to the "not implementing it is kind of stupid" as we've had
> this debate way too many times for my liking.  -- justin

View raw message