apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: [patch 0.9] apr_socket_atmark() proposed for backport
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:55:06 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Including Jeff and Brian's efforts for their respective platforms, I'm suggesting
> the apr_socket_atmark() for backport to 0.9.  Adjusted patch is attached.
> 
> configure.in rev 1.544 1.545
> include/apr.h.in rev 1.128 1.129
> include/apr.hnw rev 1.37
> include/apr.hw rev 1.118
> include/apr_network_io.h rev 1.147
> include/arch/unix/apr_arch_networkio.h rev 1.3 1.4
> network_io/os2/sockopt.c rev 1.35 1.36
> network_io/unix/sockopt.c rev 1.72
> network_io/win32/sockopt.c rev 1.54

one concern:

When I was tweaking the atmark logic recently to support AIX and z/OS, I 
  considered adding in

#ifdef SIOCATMARK
   logic
#else
   return not-implemented
#endif

However, I figured that as this is APR pre-1.0 we can stand to leave it 
alone for a while and see where else it blows up.  Maybe that "blow up" 
will be the hint necessary to make it work correctly on that platform, 
or maybe it will simply mean that it can't be supported on that platform 
and we really need the not-implemented path.

But for the 0_9_BRANCH, I think we should be more protective of the 
build and not break the build if SIOCATMARK isn't found or available. 
Presumably most of the existing software that is bound to 0_9_BRANCH 
does not care about atmark, and we have some notable applications 
(httpd) whose users need to be able to upgrade with no build surprises. 
  So I suggest tweaking the code in 0_9_BRANCH to return not-implemented 
if the symbol isn't found.  As far as such a change in HEAD: Roy-style 
shrug.



Mime
View raw message