apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <...@manyfish.co.uk>
Date Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:07:17 GMT
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:12:17AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> So, I continue to wonder, how is it useful to have this in a _portable_
> run-time, when the concept isn't at all portable?

Will you also be removing threads, IPv6, and all the other stuff which
isn't implemented on every single platforms APR supports? 

I don't care much about this particular issue, but I don't buy the
argument: as Aaron said, setting TCP_CORK is a useful optimisation on
platforms which support it. You can write a portable application which
uses TCP_CORK if available and doesn't if it's not - just as you can
write a portable app which can use threads.

If you drop it from the APR API that just makes it considerably harder
for people to use the optimisation: they would have write the autoconf
checks, make their code a mess of ifdefs, call apr_os_sock_get to get
the fd out, blah blah blah.  I'd wager the end result would be a less
"portable" application than if the code was in APR, since it leaves more
things for the app to screw up.

Having said that, leaving NOPUSH in the API as undocumented as it is
currently also allows the app to screw up and be unportable, so there's
an argument for removing it.



View raw message